President Obama has released, what used to be classified, information about specific CIA interrogation methods, and on who those methods were performed. When questioned on why he released these memos he stated, "I acted primarily because of the exceptional circumstances that surrounded these memos, particularly the fact that so much of the information was public," Obama said.
So let me get this straight: The CIA's primary focus is to prevent attacks on American soil by gathering information from those who may have it. They have certain interrogation tactics they use to help gather that information. Some of those tactics could be considered 'toture'.(Tactics that, you will read later, were completely authorized and approved by lawyers in the Bush Administration.) And Obama decides to publish memos about those tactics....for what reason? Why in the world would he take, what used to be classified, information, and publish it for everyone to know?
If a terrorist comes to this country and lives here for the primary purpose of helping to plan an attack on this country, then I believe that the CIA should be able to use whatever resources necessary to prevent said attack. The only stipulation would be if the person was a legal citizen of the United States, and the CIA had no proof of terrorism. If they tortured purely out of instinct, then I believe that's a breach in rights.
However, just because there may have been mistakes made in the CIA, does not make it right for the President to publish information about their interrogation tactics! That is not information to be released! Being in the U.S.M.C. for a while, that was one thing they took very seriously; military information. We couldn't even tell our families or friends when certain drills were going to be held, just to get us in the mindset of secrecy. And that was just the military! This is the CIA! How much more important if their information!
So, he defends the publication of those memos, and when questioned about them states that, "upholding American values and ideals in the face of those enemies is what makes the United States special, and what makes the CIA special." So...when interrogating suspects for information about possible attacks on this country, they're supposed to be polite and courteous? How in the heck are they supposed to interrogate when their tactics are already known to the populace of this country?! The thing that makes the United States of America special, has been that we don't take crap from anyone; we don't tuck-tail and run, we don't surrender to tierany, and we don't allow injustices to continue! Or, at least, that's the way it used to be.
Furthermore, Obama has vowed not to prosecute the certain agents who participated in these 'torture' tactics. Prosecute for what?! They were doing their duty! And now there's going to be questions about wether or not future interrogations will result in prosecutions. What a sad, sad day; when American government personel, who've dedicated their lives and sacrificed self-desires for this country and the freedom it entails, only to be rewarded with the possibility of being prosecuted for doing their duty.
And it's not just the agents who would've been prosecuted; Obama also vowed not to prosecute the lawyers from the Bush Administration who wrote the memos approving the tactics. What do ya know! The tactics were approved and everything! Those men and women weren't even disobeying orders! And they've been betrayed by their own Commander and Cheif.
And the sad thing is this; we will begin to cater to the muderers, rapists, sexists, and elitests who make up the world of terrorism. We will cater to them, with the intent on ending the violence that surrounds our countries, but what President Obama fails to realize is this: they don't want peace. Their entire religion is consumed by violence! So while we're worried about forming peace and ending this war, they will be testing our defenses. And since we will be so entirely focussed on peace, our defenses will not be sufficient, and we will be vulnerable. Peace can not be achieved without war. Period.
And it's not just the agents who would've been prosecuted; Obama also vowed not to prosecute the lawyers from the Bush Administration who wrote the memos approving the tactics. What do ya know! The tactics were approved and everything! Those men and women weren't even disobeying orders! And they've been betrayed by their own Commander and Cheif.
Just because the so-called "interrogation tactics" (read: torture) were approved doesn't mean that they were right to use. If waterboarding is torture when our enemies use it, and torture is wrong, then waterboarding is torture and therefore wrong when we use it. Therefore, we should find more effective ways of gathering intel.
We will cater to them, with the intent on ending the violence that surrounds our countries, but what President Obama fails to realize is this: they don't want peace. Their entire religion is consumed by violence!
First of all, "their" religion is not "consumed by violence". We're not fighting ALL of Islam; we're fighting a small group of extremists.
Second of all, what if the terrorists we fight don't want peace? Does that make anything we do to fight them justified? Are we determining what is right and fair based on what terrorists believe is right and fair? If so, we need to reexamine our approach to this "War on Terror".
Ringo
__________________ "As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
-- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797. Presented to Congress and signed by everyone in attendance.
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.''
-- Madison's original proposal for the Bill of Rights
"I ain't afraid of your Yahweh
I ain't afraid of your Allah
I ain't afraid of your Jesus
I'm afraid of what you do in the name of your God"
-- 'I Ain't Afraid' by The Klezmatics
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
So let me get this straight: The CIA's primary focus is to prevent attacks on American soil by gathering information from those who may have it. They have certain interrogation tactics they use to help gather that information. Some of those tactics could be considered 'toture'.(Tactics that, you will read later, were completely authorized and approved by lawyers in the Bush Administration.)
If they're considered torture, how does a thumbs-up from Bush's Lawyers change anything?
And Obama decides to publish memos about those tactics....for what reason? Why in the world would he take, what used to be classified, information, and publish it for everyone to know?
I think the key phrase here is "used to be." As in it's not classified anymore. Americans should know what's being done in their name.
If a terrorist comes to this country and lives here for the primary purpose of helping to plan an attack on this country, then I believe that the CIA should be able to use whatever resources necessary to prevent said attack. The only stipulation would be if the person was a legal citizen of the United States, and the CIA had no proof of terrorism. If they tortured purely out of instinct, then I believe that's a breach in rights.
"instinct"? You think people torture others purely out of "instinct"?
And if you're such a fan of torture, why exclude citizens? Anything effective at preventing foreign criminals would probably do a bang-up job on our home-gron ones as well. Why get squeamish all of a sudden about using "whatever resources necessary"?
However, just because there may have been mistakes made in the CIA, does not make it right for the President to publish information about their interrogation tactics! That is not information to be released! Being in the U.S.M.C. for a while, that was one thing they took very seriously; military information. We couldn't even tell our families or friends when certain drills were going to be held, just to get us in the mindset of secrecy. And that was just the military! This is the CIA! How much more important if their information!
You tell me, marine -- how much more important is their information, anyway?
So, he defends the publication of those memos, and when questioned about them states that, "upholding American values and ideals in the face of those enemies is what makes the United States special, and what makes the CIA special." So...when interrogating suspects for information about possible attacks on this country, they're supposed to be polite and courteous? How in the heck are they supposed to interrogate when their tactics are already known to the populace of this country?!
If it's known that we don't torture people, I'd say that makes us pretty special.
The thing that makes the United States of America special, has been that we don't take crap from anyone; we don't tuck-tail and run, we don't surrender to tierany, and we don't allow injustices to continue! Or, at least, that's the way it used to be.
And is torture going to bring that back?
Furthermore, Obama has vowed not to prosecute the certain agents who participated in these 'torture' tactics. Prosecute for what?! They were doing their duty! And now there's going to be questions about wether or not future interrogations will result in prosecutions. What a sad, sad day; when American government personel, who've dedicated their lives and sacrificed self-desires for this country and the freedom it entails, only to be rewarded with the possibility of being prosecuted for doing their duty.
"I was just following orders." Where have I heard that one before?
And it's not just the agents who would've been prosecuted; Obama also vowed not to prosecute the lawyers from the Bush Administration who wrote the memos approving the tactics. What do ya know! The tactics were approved and everything!
Approved by whom? Our King?
Those men and women weren't even disobeying orders! And they've been betrayed by their own Commander and Cheif.
Impossible. If one CinC can do whatever he wants, regardless of the law, then it only stands to reason that they all can now.
And the sad thing is this; we will begin to cater to the muderers, rapists, sexists, and elitests who make up the world of terrorism. We will cater to them, with the intent on ending the violence that surrounds our countries, but what President Obama fails to realize is this: they don't want peace. Their entire religion is consumed by violence!
You don't sound any different from them right about now.
So while we're worried about forming peace and ending this war, they will be testing our defenses. And since we will be so entirely focussed on peace, our defenses will not be sufficient, and we will be vulnerable. Peace can not be achieved without war. Period.
Can war be achieved without torture? Question mark?
__________________
Don't talk like one of them. You're not! Even if you'd like to be.
To them, you're just a freak, like me! They need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out, like a leper! You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve.
Regardless of moral implications, there is one scenario which I would like to share.
---
A government intelligence agency has caught a supposed spy working for Osama bin Laden, based on a keyword that was passed through a supercomputer at Langley. They bring him to an undisclosed location and proceed to shove bamboo through his fingernails. Throughout the interrogation, he claims he is a taxi-driver from Pakistan. The interrogators think this is a clever ruse, and decide to tear out a couple of his teeth. They demand to know who he works for, if he knows any plan of attack, etc. After some recovery in a bucket of ice cold water, he is delirious and only claims to work for his tax-cab company.
After a while, the interrogators decide that this was a particulary hardened veteran of Al-Qaeda, and access some cursory information on his immigrant family living in America. The interrogators offer him a choice: If he refuses to confess to the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, they will torture and execute his wife and daughter in turn. The man readily admits that he was an agent for Al Qaeda and proceeds to explain (in some detail) the plans for another airplane hijacking. He can't give any names, but he gives locations.
The FBI sends numerous agents out to investigate airports nationwide, and weeks pass without incident. It is according to this, that the man was lying and the therefore kill his wife in front of him, where he confesses to a "real" attack. The same thing happens: Weeks without incident and they torture his daughter too. There is yet no information, and the entire FBI and the whole of the CIA is builtup to protect the nation from the attack claimed by the man. Eventually, they imprison both for future interrogation and are purplexed by a future occurance.
A summary investigation into the man's profile in the future (long after his death) does indeed confirm, that beyond a reasonable doubt, he was simply a taxi cab driver who had only lived in Pakistan as an infant for a span of one month. A clerlical error mixed his name with a terrorist who had long since died of liver disease some where in Afghanistan.
As well all now though, no one had thought to look because they were too busy making a snuff film.
The Nuremberg Principles were a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime. The document was created by necessity during the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi party members following World War II.
Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.
Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
See also: Nuremberg Defense and Superior Orders
For Pre-Nuremberg history of "I was just following orders", see Superior Orders.
Principle V
Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(b) War Crimes:
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
**********************************************************
Obama may choose not to prosecute, but that doesn't protect those responsible under international law.
"I WAS JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS," (Principle IV) is not recognized as a valid defence for participating in acts of torture.
It should be noted that the plan for the "Trial of European War Criminals," which produced the Nutemberg Principles, was orginally drafted by Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War and later approved by President Truman.
The US is hardly in a position to consider itself exempt from the Nuremberg Principles, which it was instrumental in creating.
Last edited by jgarden; 21st April 2009 at 10:23 AM.
After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war
After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding
In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions...This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning. The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Oh but now we need it, it's fine. In fact it's more than fine, it's the patriotic thing to do.
I used to think America had a strong moral backbone that, if it wasn't present in politics, was at least present in the citizens of this fine country. I'm ashamed that the day has actually come where we are dithering over the definition of torture because we want to be able to neatly circumvent all the practices we're using.
These memos are not an honest attempt to set the legal limits on interrogations, which was the authors’ statutory obligation. They were written to provide legal immunity for acts that are clearly illegal, immoral and a violation of this country’s most basic values.
__________________
"I am an eye. I am a mechanical eye. I, a machine, I am showing you a world, the likes of which only I can see"
-Dziga Vertov
"But the work of man is only just beginning, and it remains to conquer all the violence entrenched in the recesses of our passion, for no race possesses the monopoly of beauty, of intelligence, of force. And there is place for all at the rendezvous of victory"
Sorry, but we have a right to know what our government is doing. I find it so ironic that Republicans are all for smaller more transparent government, except when it comes to hurting people. Then it seems they'll throw any excuse on why it needs to be done and that if they did do it we shouldn't know about it.
Your post is nothing more than a smear against Obama. I'm glad he released the memos, we have a right to know. And it also appears that the waterboarding was much more used than was previously disclosed. You shouldn't blame Obama for potentially inciting terrorists for what we did to them - your blame should be at Bush and the men who did the actual torturing.
If they never tortured, then we would never have had anything to hide.
__________________
I am a Christian. I am a liberal. No, these two are not mutually exclusive. Accept it and move on.
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future"
- Oscar Wilde
"I may disagree with everything you say, but will defend unto death your right to say it."
- Voltaire
Again, i find myself incredulous that the issue at hand with some people is not that we tortured, but that...(gasp)...we made it public knowledge that we torture.
The outcry from the right trying to lay blame on Obama for releasing this information, while nary a word about the fact that the CIA used torture. The supposed moral high-ground that the US had to oust Saddam from power was that we were a just, moral country, while Saddam was a brutal tyrant.
It appears that the sticking point with those that condone torture is that "it's OK, because we don't torture our own citizens". These are the same people that believe a US hegemony is justified solely through power, yet somehow rationalize our agressive actions by demonizing the enemy.
Yes, there are evil people in the world. What makes someone the good guys in their fight against evil is NOT resorting to the tactics that make one evil, even when it is the most expedient method of resolving a situation.
Firstly, it wasn't Bush alone; he may have laid the idea on the table, but the House and the Senate had to approve the tactics. Which, apprently, they did. So the allegations against these agents and laywers is completely unfounded! The country passed the tactics and legalized them. End of story. Regardless of your moral or political beliefs on waterboarding, those agents, by the law, did nothing wrong. Therefore, they should not(and really can not) be punished by the law.
Secondly, as for the accusations against me being no better than the terrorists for being for waterboarding; believe what you may. I don't think anyone who's soul purpose in life is to either convert everyone in the world to their religion, or murder those who don't convert, including innocent men, women and children, and even going to the extreme to use their own children in their "cause", has any heart left inside themselves. Call me what you will, but I believe their religion to be the most hateful, prejudice religion. You don't see other religions hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings; you don't see other religions threatening to destroy this country, and even the world.
Are we fighting all of Islam? No. Am I saying to gather innocent people and torture them for the sake of our country and protecting its people? Of course not. If that's what you took from my first post, you obviously misunderstood everything I said. Am I okay with waterboarding? Absolutely. If the person or people being interrogated have been proven to be terrorists, I see absolutely no problem with the tactic. Keep in mind, terrorists started this war by crashing planes into the Word Trade Center.
And have we forgotten Jessica Lynch? The things that were done to her are far wrose than any American in this war has done to any terrorist. If a normal civillian were to take a young girl and do the same things to her that were done to Jessica Lynch, the American people would be furious, and think that that person was the worst person, and throw them in jail for life. Maybe they'd even get the death scentence. But because the military or the CIA decide to torture terrorists, everyone throws a fit and says that the country has lost its humanity, and that we're no better than the terrorists now, blah blah blah. Such hypocrisy.
Firstly, it wasn't Bush alone; he may have laid the idea on the table, but the House and the Senate had to approve the tactics. Which, apprently, they did. So the allegations against these agents and laywers is completely unfounded! The country passed the tactics and legalized them. End of story.
That's simply not true. These "tactics" were apparently used without our knowledge until someone had the good sense to uncover the "interrogation tactics" used on our prisoners. I never voted for them. You never voted for them. I don't recall Congress ever voting in approval for torture. It was all done without our knowledge or our consent.
Regardless of your moral or political beliefs on waterboarding, those agents, by the law, did nothing wrong.
If they used waterboarding on our prisoners - and they did - then they tortured. And if they tortured, then yes, these agents did do wrong. If it's wrong for our enemies to torture, it should be wrong for us too.
I believe their religion to be the most hateful, prejudice religion. You don't see other religions hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings; you don't see other religions threatening to destroy this country, and even the world.
Again: a religion is not threatening our country. A small group of extremists who belong to a religion are threatening our country.
Am I okay with waterboarding? Absolutely. If the person or people being interrogated have been proven to be terrorists, I see absolutely no problem with the tactic. Keep in mind, terrorists started this war by crashing planes into the Word Trade Center.
I don't care what terrorists did or didn't do. That doesn't give us the right to use illegal and immoral tactics just to feel a little bit safe.
And have we forgotten Jessica Lynch? The things that were done to her are far wrose than any American in this war has done to any terrorist. If a normal civillian were to take a young girl and do the same things to her that were done to Jessica Lynch, the American people would be furious, and think that that person was the worst person, and throw them in jail for life. Maybe they'd even get the death scentence. But because the military or the CIA decide to torture terrorists, everyone throws a fit and says that the country has lost its humanity, and that we're no better than the terrorists now, blah blah blah. Such hypocrisy.
Because terrorists mistreated Jessica Lynch, that gives us the right to torture prisoners? The moment this country starts deciding what's right or wrong based on what terrorists consider right or wrong is the moment this country loses its soul in the name of national security.
This is not hypocrisy. We're supposed to hold ourselves to a higher standards than the terrorists. That's why we don't torture. It has nothing to do with who they are or what they did, but sticking by our morals even in times of war.
Ringo
__________________ "As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
-- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797. Presented to Congress and signed by everyone in attendance.
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.''
-- Madison's original proposal for the Bill of Rights
"I ain't afraid of your Yahweh
I ain't afraid of your Allah
I ain't afraid of your Jesus
I'm afraid of what you do in the name of your God"
-- 'I Ain't Afraid' by The Klezmatics
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
