"There is an international treaty against torture. Any legitimate interrogation technique short of that is legal, is it not?"

It would be legal under international law. However, if we pass a domestic law that is sufficiently vague as to allow for it to be interpreted as more restrictive than the UN Conventions, then you would decrease the number of techniques that would still be legal.

"The only purpose of Cheney's amendment is to allow the CIA to violate the ban on torture."

The UN Conventions are still the law, regardless of this new law. This new law doesn't talk about torture, to the best of my knowledge. It talks about cruel, degrading, or inhumane acts, which is different in a legal sense, if not to your sense of ethics.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

However, if we pass a domestic law that is sufficiently vague as to allow for it to be interpreted as more restrictive than the UN Conventions, then you would decrease the number of techniques that would still be legal.


I agree that "cruel" and to some degree "degrading" care vague. Perhaps that's a weakness of this law. However, if an act is "inhuman" it damn well better be prohibited.

---

_______________________________________________

"However, if an act is "inhuman" it damn well better be prohibited. "

I think the word is "inhumane." Humane means "characterized by compassion for others, so inhumane isn't as bad as it might sound if you take off that "e."

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

the two words are used fairly interchangeably - McCain's amendement did use "inhumane" but clearly references the convention agsint totrure, cruel, degrading, or inhuman treatment.

Worth the read, by Sen McCain:

Cruel, Inhumane, Degrading Treatment

The second part of this amendment really shouldn’t be objectionable to anyone since I’m actually not proposing anything new. The prohibition against cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment has been a longstanding principle in both law and policy in the United States. Before I get into why this amendment is necessary, let me first review the history.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states simply that “No one shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the U.S. is a signatory, states the same. The binding Convention Against Torture, negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by the Senate, prohibits cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. On last year’s DOD Authorization bill, the Senate passed a bipartisan amendment reaffirming that no detainee in U.S. custody can be subject to torture or cruel treatment, as the U.S. has long defined those terms. All of this seems to be common sense, in accordance with longstanding American values.

But since last year’s DOD bill, a strange legal determination was made that the prohibition in the Convention Against Torture against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment does not legally apply to foreigners held outside the U.S. They can, apparently, be treated inhumanely. This is the administration’s position, even though Judge Abe Soafer, who negotiated the Convention Against Torture for President Reagan, said in a recent letter that the Reagan administration never intended the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment to apply only on U.S. soil.

What all this means is that America is the only country in the world that asserts a legal right to engage in cruel and inhuman treatment. But the crazy thing is that it is not even necessary, because the Administration has said that it will not engage in cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as a matter of policy. What this also means is that confusion about the rules becomes rampant again. We have so many differing legal standards and loopholes that our lawyers and generals are confused – just imagine our troops serving in prisons and the field.

So the amendment I am offering simply codifies what is current policy and reaffirms what was assumed to be existing law for years. In light of the administration’s stated commitment, it should require no change in our current interrogation and detention practices. What it would do is restore clarity on a simple and fundamental question: Does America treat people inhumanely? My answer is no, and from all I’ve seen, America’s answer has always been no.

Mr. President, let me just close by noting that I hold no brief for the prisoners. I do hold a brief for the reputation of the United States of America. We are Americans, and we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how evil or terrible they may be. To do otherwise undermines our security, but it also undermines our greatness as a nation. We are not simply any other country. We stand for something more in the world – a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these terrorists, and we will we win. The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don’t deserve our sympathy. But this isn’t about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

http://mccain.senate.gov/...&Content_id=1611

---

_______________________________________________

I am one of those who feels that anything we can do to save American lives is fair game.

Raping a terrorists wife? Pouring boiling water into a terrorists anus? Etc etc.

I don't think anyone has asked for permission to authorize torture, just protection that would allow the CIA to explore methods involving things that might be offensive but might not constitute torture.

You're spinning so fast I'm getting dizzy.

Maybe not, maybe you think anything that is demeaning is torture.

We're back to this, huh? I thought we settled this already when we agreed that Cheney is not seeking an exemption for that kind of thing.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Once again Vitus. For the record, I'm against torture.

I'm also against outlawing it. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. It may take a nimble mind to manage both ideas, but it's worth the effort.


The U.S. maintains a string of secret prisons in eastern Europe where we have stashed captured Al Qaeda guys. And I am not in favor of telling these guys what we won't do. I am not in favor of Al Qaeda knowing there is a U.S. law which prevents CIA agents from making life miserable for captured Al Qaedas.

To my way of thinking, the benefit gained from telling the world we have a law that forbids torture is outweighed by the bad guys knowing we have a law that forbids torture. Again it's U.S. policy to not torture, but it shouldn't be so crystal clear that even a kid educated in a madrassa and trained as a bomb builder is certain that there is law that prevents torture. We would like him to be in doubt on that point.

The findings some 20 years ago with the Church Committee have led to some less than desirable results in the new century. I thought we had learned that legislating rules and procedures for the CIA is not such a good thing — at least not in all cases — and we ought to be careful about putting stops in the way of spooks who are only trying to protect us.

You need to qualify that Vitus.

Raping a "suspect's" wife, or pouring boiling water into the anus of a "suspect".

Remember none of these people have been tried or convicted of anything and none of them have had access to any kind of legal representation. They have been picked up off the street by the CIA presumably based on tip offs or intelligence from paid informants....so one of these paid informants could have a row with his dry cleaner over the amount of starch in his shirts and hey presto, the next day the guy is on a charter flight to Romania and having electrodes attached to his gonads by the CIA.

Anyone remember all that intel we paid Chalabi hundreds of thousands of dollars for? anyone remember the intel that led the CIA to say that the existence of WMDs was a "slam dunk", anyone remember the intel that let to the rounding up of thousands of Arab Americans post 9/11 all of whom were eventually released?

Without any sort of due process we will end up torturing a lot more innocent people than guilty.....and what will that achieve...well we'll probably turn a lot of peaceful dry cleaners into angry terrorists, and who could blame them?

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

Once again Vitus. For the record, I'm against torture.

You are making it perfectly clear to me how much you're against torture in much the same way the administration is. Didn't you just say that you'd favor doing anything necessary to a terrorist to save American lives?

I'm also against outlawing it. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. It may take a nimble mind to manage both ideas, but it's worth the effort.

I think, although your mind appears more nimble than mine, that it's like saying one is against abortion, but doesn't want it banned.

The U.S. maintains a string of secret prisons in eastern Europe where we have stashed captured Al Qaeda guys. And I am not in favor of telling these guys what we won't do.

I am. I'm in favor of proclaiming proudly to the whole world that there's a moral difference between those guys and Americans, and we do not commit what every civilized people consider an atrocity.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You need to qualify that Vitus.

Raping a "suspect's" wife, or pouring boiling water into the anus of a "suspect".

That's true. I was only accepting the assertion that the only people we have in secret prisons, and the only people we'd actually torture, are in fact terrorists for the sake of argument. (Does anyone believe, still, that all of the prisoners in Iraq, for example, are guilty of being insurgents?)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Excellent post, ATG. This attitude nails it.

What attitude? Dishonesty?

---

_______________________________________________

In military encounters, the rules of engagement are always secret. You don't want the enemy to know what you will do or how you will do it.

ATG wants the rules secret, so that when prisoners are captured, they won't know what to expect and will be scared.

So you really think that if we pass McCain's law, terror suspects won't be scared of the CIA? Gimme a break. you know they'll just say they're the Mossad anyway.

---

_______________________________________________

I think ATG put it very well. I don't have anything to add other than yes, they will be less scared of the CIA.

We have all sorts of laws governing police conduct in this country. That is a good thing. I know if I have a problem with the Police, I can laugh at them and let them take their best shot. I don't want enemies of this country thinking that way about our troops or the CIA.

Marine code is no better friend and no worse enemy. I want both halves of that to continue to be true.

So let me clarify - you dont actually want the CIA to torture anyone, but you want them to be allowed to torture simply to scare prisoners. Is that correct?

---

_______________________________________________

That is pretty close with the possible exception of extraordinary circumstances. I do mean extraordinary as that word is defined, not as used by the gang of 14 regarding filibusters. Extraordinary means that it will probably never happen.

That is the policy I would like, and that policy should be secret.

As a people we need to deal with the fact that we have to trust our leaders with important decisions that we often never learn about. If you can't so trust them, then don't elect them. Restricting them with rules claiming "high crimes" if someone photographs a little Iraqi penis while simultaneously giving POTUS the authority to push a button and incinerate a country is just stupid. Talk about deck chairs on the Titanic.

I think that's delusional, frankly. We make exemptions, and the CIA will be using cruel, degrading, and inhuman(e) tactics early and often.

---

_______________________________________________

Evidently we're to believe that Cheney's request amounts to nothing more than a disinformation campaign aimed at potential detainees.

It's laughable. We're to believe that CIA interrogators are unable to intimidate detainees in secret prisons without the legal authority to torture people? Please.

What makes it even more absurd is Art's support, in the face of his constant statements about how complicated gamesmanship is. This is going to make future detainees more fearful of interrogators, because they're going to believe it. It's not, I guess, going to have any impact on the wider world opinion of the US, and it's not going to have any impact on how the Islamic world views the US, and it's not going to have any impact on mitigating the hatred so many people have for the US. It's only going to have an effect on terrorists. Everyone else will realize that we don't really mean it.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Vitus its amazing how much more sense you seem to make when you're on the same side of a debate as me.



;-)

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

I suspect a fair number of people in here secretly harbor similiar feelings, Matt.

:)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I think that the people charged with protecting this country are going to just that, regardless of rules designed for feel good public consumption. (I also believe that the potential enemy targets of such treatment also understand that, or can be readily made to understand it.)

If you were so charged and convinced to a moral certainty that they guy in front of you had information necessary to prevent a bombing, I suspect you might wire his nuts up to a car battery. Or would the second time, after the bomb went off.

Is it disturbing to think that Americans would act this way? I think like a lot of hard choices, it depends. I resolve the issue this way: We are at war. The rights I have as an American derive from the fact that I AM an American. Joe Al Qaida is not and does not get to enjoy those rights. This is similar to the Geneva Convention argument. The Conventions deal with the treatment of soldiers. A defined term. Insurgents do not have similar coverage and should not be given similar treatment.

So, am I personally thrilled that I will be unlikely to be confronted by such a choice? You betcha. Cuz being wrong would really really suck. I would prefer to have non-public rules developed to minimize the chances of mistakes rather than spend time making rules that will not be obeyed.

If you were so charged and convinced to a moral certainty that they guy in front of you had information necessary to prevent a bombing, I suspect you might wire his nuts up to a car battery. Or would the second time, after the bomb went off.

Doubtful, since torture is known to yield inaccurate responses. The argument that a CIA agent will be in a situation where he needs urgent information, and only torture will yield this information, is specious. Likewise the argument that, (prisoners such as Kahild Sheik Muhhammed aside), an agent will be certain that a suspect has useful information about the impeding deaths of Americans.

The rights I have as an American derive from the fact that I AM an American.

I think vitus979 needs to educate you on the source of rights, and not simply in a legal sense. This concept that Americans inherently have more human rights than other people is pretty sad actually. At least let me inform you that since the US is a signatory to the Conventions Against Torture, foreigners have the same legal right as you not to be tortured under the laws of this country.

---

_______________________________________________

Well Art, looks like you're going to get your investigation

http://www.cnn.com/...son.probe/index.html

---

_______________________________________________

"Doubtful, since torture is known to yield inaccurate responses."

I am going to trust, yes, trust, the people immediately involved to know the limitations of any particular methodology. I simply do not ascribe to the belief that the CIA is a bunch of raving, torture happy psychopaths. I have no reason to believe that it is currently torturing everyone who falls into their clutches.

"(prisoners such as Kahild Sheik Muhhammed aside), an agent will be certain that a suspect has useful information about the impeding deaths of Americans."

That was the example I was thinking of, for what it is worth.


"I think vitus979 needs to educate you on the source of rights, and not simply in a legal sense.This concept that Americans inherently have more human rights than other people is pretty sad actually."

Natural Rights, gotcha. The problem is that we are discussing a proposed US law. It is precisely the legal sense that we are talking about. Under US law, being a citizen matters. (for the moment and at least a little bit.) The McCain amendment, as I understand it expands the protections against torture beyond the treaty. Correct me if I am wrong. In that sense, I disagree. If, on the other hand, it reaffirms treaty obligations, it is a stunt, along the lines of passing more gun control laws when the thousand plus already on the books are not enforced.

Correct me if I am wrong

You are wrong.

I posted this before, but here it is again from John McCain's website: (emphasis mine)

Cruel, Inhumane, Degrading Treatment

The second part of this amendment really shouldn’t be objectionable to anyone since I’m actually not proposing anything new. The prohibition against cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment has been a longstanding principle in both law and policy in the United States. Before I get into why this amendment is necessary, let me first review the history.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states simply that “No one shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the U.S. is a signatory, states the same. The binding Convention Against Torture, negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by the Senate, prohibits cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. On last year’s DOD Authorization bill, the Senate passed a bipartisan amendment reaffirming that no detainee in U.S. custody can be subject to torture or cruel treatment, as the U.S. has long defined those terms. All of this seems to be common sense, in accordance with longstanding American values.

But since last year’s DOD bill, a strange legal determination was made that the prohibition in the Convention Against Torture against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment does not legally apply to foreigners held outside the U.S. They can, apparently, be treated inhumanely. This is the administration’s position, even though Judge Abe Soafer, who negotiated the Convention Against Torture for President Reagan, said in a recent letter that the Reagan administration never intended the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment to apply only on U.S. soil.

...

So the amendment I am offering simply codifies what is current policy and reaffirms what was assumed to be existing law for years. In light of the administration’s stated commitment, it should require no change in our current interrogation and detention practices. What it would do is restore clarity on a simple and fundamental question: Does America treat people inhumanely? My answer is no, and from all I’ve seen, America’s answer has always been no

--------------------

Call it s stunt, but the simple fact that Cheney is asking for the exemption only underscores its neccesity to me.

---

_______________________________________________