Pres. Obama admits USA torture

[Michael]

I know that most Americans never faced up to this and even more actually support the policy of torture, murder by drone, "Nuke 'em 'til it's a glass parking lot", etc., but President Obama has admitted that it happened and said it's wrong. It's toothless without punishment, but here it is.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-NbNM2cMHQ

Obama on CIA’s post-9/11 tactics: ‘We tortured some folks’
http://rt.com/usa/177444-obama-briefing-cia-torture/

[Alexatron]

I don't understand why they don't make it legal but put similar controls in place for the likes of a search warrant. I can get a search warrant to do my job but have to jump through a whole bunch of hoops and present a very strong case as to why its needed and is the only way forward in an investigation. Everything is peer reviewed and scrutinized to ensure there is no abuse of the power.
If torture is the only way to extract information from a proven suspect and that information could save possibly hundreds or even thousands of innocent lives then its a dereliction of duty not to explore that avenue. I can think of a few people I've had to deal with who I wouldn't mind torturing

[Dajenarit]

Except torture never works as a means of interrogation and even if it did we left the Dark Ages behind for a reason.

[Steve James]

Well, I think most people oppose "torture" when or because it is the deliberate infliction of pain or suffering on a person. But, then are the practical considerations, such as "when lives are in danger" situations. However, let's say that it always works: i.e., the person tortured will always say whatever it takes to stop the pain --if that was any motivation at all. So, there's a problem with the "when lives are in danger" argument. It's really about time. Honestly, if my child were buried in a box with a few hours of air, I would consider beating the crap out of the person who knew but refused to tell. But, what about three days later? After I knew the child were dead, would I still beat the crap out of that person? It wouldn't be the same. And, what if it were the wrong guy? Or what if he just didn't know? Or, what if you don't know what he is supposed to know either? How will you know when he's telling the truth?

That's what the questions would be like in an ethics course. Some people abhor torture, but are ok with the death penalty. And, when all conditions are perfect (i.e., the guy's guilty, really knows the info, and the danger is imminent), most people would at least consider torture. There are loads of psychological experiments that illustrate that fact.

Ya know, the head interrogator of the 911 "masterminds" who got the information leading to the capture of OBL and others said that his method was to make friends. Call it using the Stockholm syndrome or whatever, but he said it worked better than water-boarding. Of course, torture doesn't have to be physical, and I think that people feel differently about non-physical torture.

Anyway, some people oppose torture because "turn about is fair play."

[windwalker]

we lose the moral high ground when these things come to light.
for military people it means there are really no http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
there is no expectation of being treated humanly, in fact the opposite is probably true.

we keep trying to hold ourselves as some example of a higher ground, that the rest of the world
kind of laughs at.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

even if it was done before it was not admitted, only suspected. Now the question becomes if there was "admitted" torture used.
So what, what does it mean for those that ordered it, and those that conducted it.

three U.S. servicemen who had tried to halt the massacre and rescue the hiding civilians were shunned, and even denounced as traitors by several U.S. Congressmen, including Mendel Rivers, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Only thirty years later they were recognized and decorated, one posthumously, by the U.S. Army for shielding non-combatants from harm in a war zone.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

we prosecute and go after others for violations of the Geneva conventions others can not hold the US accountable because

Grave breaches[edit]
Logo of International Criminal Court
Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:

willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments

The United States has ratified the four Conventions of 1949, but has not ratified the two additional Protocols of 1977.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/geneva_conventions

guess what the other 2 protocols cover?

Ptotocol I: In this additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, the signing Nations agreed to further restrictions on the treatment of "protected persons" according to the original Conventions. Furthermore, clarification of the terms used in the Conventions was introduced. Finally, new rules regarding the treatment of the deceased, cultural artifacts, and dangerous targets (such as dams and nuclear installations) were produced.

Protocol II: In this Protocol, the fundamentals of "humane treatment" were further clarified. Additionally, the rights of interned persons were specifically enumerated, providing protections for those charged with crimes during wartime. It also identified new protections and rights of civilian populations.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/geneva_conventions

must be nice to be able to hold others accountable but somehow we are above the law.
mmm, not above it since we havent signed on to it

[Dajenarit]

You're always going to end up torturing innocent people if you're using it as the main means of interrogation to find out if, how and why they are involved in whatever it is you're investigating. It's just stupid on its face.

[Michael]

I don't understand why they don't make it legal but put similar controls in place for the likes of a search warrant. I can get a search warrant to do my job but have to jump through a whole bunch of hoops and present a very strong case as to why its needed and is the only way forward in an investigation. Everything is peer reviewed and scrutinized to ensure there is no abuse of the power.
If torture is the only way to extract information from a proven suspect and that information could save possibly hundreds or even thousands of innocent lives then its a dereliction of duty not to explore that avenue. I can think of a few people I've had to deal with who I wouldn't mind torturing

In the freedom-lovin' USA, the FBI can write its own warrants now and the amount of torture going on is tremendous, we do it fairly openly, but just cover it with some euphemisms, as used by Pres. Obama in the video.

Would you consider the possibility that you might be tortured under such a policy? Do you know what that's actually like? Have any concerns that such a power might be misused against you? It's not like TV and the vast majority of victims of USA torture policies and practices are not criminals of any kind, not even fitting into the ridiculous definitions of terrorist or enemy combatant.

There are probably quite a few first hand accounts out there of being tortured, the ones I'm most familiar with are Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four and Solzenitzyn's Gulag Archipelago. I think you might be interested to know this topic a little better and then you can be more persuasive about its effectiveness and use on the general public.

[Michael]

Sorry, I forgot, nobody reads books any longer. My bad.

The film "Brazil", from hilarious director Terry Gilliam of Monty Python fame, depicts a situation where a man is mistakenly arrested due to a typo caused by misprint on an automatically generated arrest warrant, and because the normal policy is to torture all terrorists, he is mistakenly tortured to death. The movie is quite funny, but does contain one scene with the consequences of the man's death to his family.

I strongly suggest this film, especially the uncut version.



The most recent film version from of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four is also excellent, but a bit of a downer compared to Gilliam's, who just has that special way of making torture seem a bit more entertaining. Orwell was too serious, yah.

[Alexatron]

Sorry, I forgot, nobody reads books any longer. My bad.

The film "Brazil", from hilarious director Terry Gilliam of Monty Python fame, depicts a situation where a man is mistakenly arrested due to a typo caused by misprint on an automatically generated arrest warrant, and because the normal policy is to torture all terrorists, he is mistakenly tortured to death. The movie is quite funny, but does contain one scene with the consequences of the man's death to his family.

I strongly suggest this film, especially the uncut version.



The most recent film version from of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four is also excellent, but a bit of a downer compared to Gilliam's, who just has that special way of making torture seem a bit more entertaining. Orwell was too serious, yah.

Watched the movies and read the books - always find it amusing when someone tries to bolster their POV by quoting works of fiction

[Alexatron]

Except torture never works as a means of interrogation and even if it did we left the Dark Ages behind for a reason.

I doubt it would still be used if it 'never' worked and seriously . . . read the papers, watch the news and get out more - we might pretend we're civilized but observation would suggest otherwise.

[windwalker]

According to Human Rights First, the interrogation that led to the death of Iraqi Major General Abed Hamed Mowhoush involved the use of techniques used in SERE training. According to the organization "Internal FBI memos and press reports have pointed to SERE training as the basis for some of the harshest techniques authorized for use on detainees by the Pentagon in 2002 and 2003."[

As a result of POWs' experiences during Operation Desert Storm, sexual assault resistance was added to the SERE curriculum. However, some of the training scenarios allegedly were taken too far by SERE cadet members at the academy during practical portions of the program. In 1995, the ABC television news program 20/20 reported that as many as 24 male and female cadets in 1993 had allegedly been sexually assaulted at the Academy during SERE training. One of the cadets sued the U.S. federal government, which eventually settled for a reported $3 million in damages.[11]

The CIA physical and psychological methods were originally codified in the Kubark Counterintelligence Interrogation Manual published in 1963, and in CIA torture training handbooks for Latin American regimes published in the 1970s and 1980s, and were employed during the Cold War, the CIA's Phoenix program in Vietnam, and the CIA's Operation Condor in South America.[8] The other primary source for SERE techniques was 1960's CIA "mind control experiments," using sleep deprivation, drugs, electric shock, and isolation and extended sensory deprivation.[9] Certain of the less physically damaging CIA methods derived from what was at the time called 'defensive' behavioral research" were reduced and refined as training techniques for the SERE program.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival,_ ... and_Escape

went through some training similar to this in the early 70s while in the US Army.
it does present problems for the military in that, by exposing people to it in order to strengthen them for combative operations, it tends to lesson the impact of using the
same tech, on the enemy since ts part of a training course.

anyone can be made to talk,
for the military the main point is to try to hold out for 24hrs, after this time any info is probably not reliable.
the main point I would think is that we persecute others for what are called war crimes. If the president admits to the use of torture by the US,
it would seem to put the ones who ordered it, conducted it, in jeopardy of "following orders" that are ilegal under national and international law.

Superior orders, often known as the Nuremberg defense, lawful orders or by the German phrase "Befehl ist Befehl" ("orders are orders"), is a plea in a court of law that a person, whether a member of the armed forces or a civilian, not be held guilty for actions which were ordered by a superior officer or a public official.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

[windwalker]

At least some Bush administration officials opposed the interrogation techniques, including notably Condoleezza Rice's most senior adviser Philip Zelikow.[33] Upon learning details of the program, Zelikow wrote a memo contesting the Justice Department's Torture Memos, believing them wrong both legally and as a matter of policy.[33] Zelikow's memo warned that the interrogation techniques breached US law, and could lead to prosecutions for war crimes.[12][34] The Bush Administration attempted to collect all of the copies of Zelikow's memo and destroy them.[33][35] Jane Mayer, author of the Dark Side,[36] quotes Zelikow as predicting that "America's descent into torture will in time be viewed like the Japanese internments", in that "(f)ear and anxiety were exploited by zealots and fools."[37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_i ... techniques

justification for " Superior orders "

[Alexatron]

Would you consider the possibility that you might be tortured under such a policy? Do you know what that's actually like? Have any concerns that such a power might be misused against you? It's not like TV and the vast majority of victims of USA torture policies and practices are not criminals of any kind, not even fitting into the ridiculous definitions of terrorist or enemy combatant.

I used to live in England back when the IRA were active and had a couple of near misses. Our local Woolworths was blown to bits - a place we shopped at. So would I balance the risk of finding myself in the wrong place at the wrong time and being considered a likely suspect (a very unlikely scenario) against the much more likely scenario of becoming a victim of the IRA and vote to legalize torture under very controlled and special circumstances? Yes

If 9/11 could have been averted by torturing 10 people with 1 of those people being totally innocent of any involvement then would that be a reasonable price to have paid?

It does sound like things have got out of hand in the USA but that doesn't mean there isn't a place for torture just that things need tightening up over there. If we hobble the protectors of our freedoms too much whilst our enemies have no such controls then we're putting our freedom and safety at risk IMHO. I have it on good authority that both the British SAS and NZ SIS both use torture under certain circumstances and I trust in their professionalism and judgement on this. What's the alternative?

[windwalker]

In looking to objective standards to inform a judgment about evolving standards of decency or interrogation techniques that shock the conscience, three sources stand out:
American government practice, by any agency, in holding or questioning enemy combatants -- including enemy combatants who do not have Geneva protection or who were regarded at the time as suspected terrorists, guerrillas, or saboteurs. We are unaware of any precedent in Wold War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, or any subsequent conflict for authorized, systematic interrogation practices similar to those in question here, even where the prisoners were presumed to be unlawful combatants

Recent practice by police and prison authorities in confining or questioning their most dangerous suspects. This practice is especially helpful since these authorities are governed by substantively similar standards to those that would apply under the [Convention Against Torture], given the Senate's reservation. We have not conducted a review of American domestic practice. From the available cases, it appears likely that some of the techniques being used would likely pass muster;

several almost certainly would not.

Recent practice by other advanced governments that face potentially catastrophic terrorist dangers. [REDACTED]...governments have abandoned several of the techniques in question here.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... s_to_light

the "memo"

Recent practice by other advanced governments that face potentially catastrophic terrorist dangers. [REDACTED]...governments have abandoned several of the techniques in question here.

one would think that for a country such as ours, what has happened in the past would not be repeated in the future.
our president, soon after coming into office, wanted to expose a lot of things he mentioned in the first campaign, he didnt probably understanding the consequences of doing so.

luckily our "free" press, and public doesn't seem to pay much attention these things.

[Dajenarit]

Legalize torture? Sounds awesome.

I'm gonna pull a John Wang and tell you, I don't even know how to argue with that Alex.