Cheny endorses Torture

Parent Cafe
61

<p>“I wonder what strategies currently being employed by the U.S. Government account for the fact that as of today, a full five years after 9/11, there have been NO further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil? Al Qaida claims they’ve still got it in for us—have in fact, been threatening to drop the other shoe for the past five years. So, what are they waiting for? What’s stopping them?”</p>

<p>Based on what we saw with the 2 attacks on the WTC, I am guessing that they are planning something even bigger, and that takes a long time to plan. After all, since their last attack plan allowed the terrorists to go down in a suicidal blaze of glory, future attackers will want to have even more glory.</p>

<p>My guess is that what they are planning on attacking is the White House, Pentagon and/or Congress, since the Sept. 11 attacks on Washington didn’t have the impact that they had planned. The plane that went down in Penn. was supposed to hit the White House. The Pentagon’s damage wasn’t as impressive as what happened to the WTC.</p>

<p>I honestly don’t think that torture interrogations will prevent anything. I also have lost enough faith in our government not to believe them when they say that they have prevented terrorism attacks. After all, this is the government that tries to say that the war is going well when anyone can see that it is not.</p>

62

<p>There were plenty of plots and most were successful - just not carried out within the confines of the 50 states. Two plots that were disrupted were the millennium bombing attack of LAX - disrupted by a very perceptive border agent (nothing to do with a Clinton policy); and the plot to blow up a number of airlines over the Pacific - disrupted by clumsiness on the part of the bomber and the subsequent capture of his PC in the Philippines (again, nothing to do with Clinton policy).</p>

63

<p>The objection to torture really comes down to whether or not a terrorist, or suspected terrorist, has any information important to our security, and if not, we would feel bad about harming an “innocent”. It is a matter of correctly picking out who has information we want. </p>

<p>Too bad we can’t determine that by lie detector tests.</p>

64

<p>

There WERE attacks between the time of the first and second WTC attacks. Khobar Towers, the Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole. The fact that they weren’t on US soil doesn’t mean that they weren’t attacks against US interests. The Millenium attack plan and the plot to blow up airliners over the Pacific are plots that we know were disrupted. This thing doesn’t end just because the American people are tired of it. </p>

<p>I agree with FundingFather

Someone who I greatly respect recently commented that this country is at greater risk for a nuclear attack now than it ever was during the Cold War. It’s time to wake up – if waterboarding prevents such an attack, then the end is justified by the means.</p>

65

<p>greater threat of attack now, after 6 years of Bush, gee…</p>

66

<p>And since 9-11: London, Madrid, Bali and 3000 dead in Iraq. Bushes greatest success seems to be moving the target from Saudi Arabia to Iraq. Plots foiled during Clinton = Luck. During Bush II=skill in torture. Very perceptive analysis. Has anyone here either been subjected to or perpetrated torture?</p>

67

<p>Let’s not forget Richard Reid, the “Shoe bomber”, foiled by clever interrogation techniques… or was it a flight attendant? So hard to remember anything that doesn’t fit into that lockstep ideology…</p>

68

<p>It is simplistic to say or imply that abusive interrogation techniques are why there have been no terrosits attacks in the US since 9/11. I trust that everything from the invasion of Afghanistan to heightened airport and other domestic security contributes to our ongoing safety. I also think that in all likelihood there will be another attack in the US. But I continue to believe that torture (or abusive interrogation techniques) and indefinite detainment without legal process or secret detainment are should not be legal or condoned. I also continue to believe that the use of such practices are not the likely reason that there has not been an attack in the US since 9/11. The “Summary of the High Value Terrorist Detainee Program” prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence referred to above doesn’t show otherwise. The US can continue to capture, detain and interrogate suspected terrorists without the necessity of a law allowing the President of the United States to hold them forever without legal process and without the necessity of torturing them.</p>

69

<p>Another potential “reason” why there hasn’t been another attack? How about the fact that it takes years to vet that many suicidial people… and maybe there isn’t a long line of others who want to die next time? to forsake all that life has to offer…yes there are individuals who continue to blow themselves up…but, 9/11 took a much larger coordinated effort…perhaps they don’t have the resources to repeat?</p>

<p>America could and should be reaching out to all leaders of faith to protest what is going on…and how NO religious beliefs justify killing and suicide. None…no faith is worth murder…didn’t Gandhi already prove the value of peaceful protest? </p>

<p>Our current administration is NOT about leadership…they are about power and control…period…</p>

70

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t know how you can read that and come to the conclusion that our techniques have not been directly responsible for the disruption of plots and the capture of terrorists.</p>

71

<p>From the U.S. Dept. of State report on Tunisia
c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment </p>

<p>

<a href=“http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61700.htm[/url]”>http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61700.htm&lt;/a&gt;
So sometimes (when we aren’t doing it) waterboarding is torture and sometimes 9when we do it)it is not.</p>

72

<p>Oh, come one, gla, don’t you understand? The US does not torture; therefore, if we did it, it obviously wasn’t torture. By definition…</p>

<p>Personally, I believe in certain absolute moral standards, and I cannot condone torture. It is simply wrong. It also elicits unreliable information, hurts our reputation, injures innocent people (since, believe it or not, we do not always arrest only real terrorists), and aids in the recruiting of more terrorists to fight against us. But, besides that, it is just wrong.</p>

73

<p>i am confused what does the word torture mean</p>

74

<p>Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 </p>

<p>Article 1 </p>

<ol>
<li> For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.</li>
</ol>

75

<p>Is waterboarding torture, or not? According to the definition provided by GLA in Post #74, can there really be any doubt? I sure wouldn’t want to undergo it. The fact that our Special Forces trainees undergo this procedure is proof that such water-torture techniques have long been a staple used to extract information throughout history and around the world. If it were not potentially effective in extracting valuable information, the U.S. Military would not be training its elite units to withstand its effects. I believe waterboarding has resulted in the obtainment of specific and valuble information, which has served to thwart further devastating attacks on the U.S. since 9/11. I also believe it has been used to obtain many false confessions, and to emotionally and psychologically damage innocent detainees (or at least persons so tangential to real threat as to be strategically insignificant). I have a serious problem with the idea of torture, as I am essentally a soft-hearted person, who abhors the thought of human suffering—especially that inflicted, or sponsored by my own government upon innocents. But I also have serious problems with mass murder, especially that of innocent Americans by fanatics (people who, by definition, don’t tend to respond well to logic or diplomacy) who believe themselves theologically mandated to do so. </p>

<p>I’m always somewhat bemused by those who show a sort of PC tolerance for the brand of religious fanaticism that would result in us all being blown to smithereens via rougue nuclear devices (or devastatinginly peicemeal, via lesser means of mass destruction), at the hands of Islamic terrorists, but wring their hands in anguish, and knash their teeth in panic over a few Fundamentalist Christians interning in Congress. I have to marvel at the cognitive dissonance that allows this type of contradictary thinking. </p>

<p>I keep thinking about how I would feel if someone dear to me (my children, for instance), were to be murdered by fanatics, who could have been thwarted if someone with vital information had been forced to reveal its plot prior to its undertaking. Is the sacrifice of my innocent child/children (along with that of perhaps thousands of others) worth the dogged upholding of humane ideals in the treatment of detainees? It’s a question that discomfits me in the extreme, but ultimately one wherein I have to answer, “No”. The physical and psychological comfort of a potential terrorist should not be valued above that of my loved one. Sorry, but it’s not a theoretical, or even theological question for me. I am not unbiased. I’ve got a dog in this fight. </p>

<p>But I do ask that our government resort to torture ONLY after every other option to obtain lifesaving information has been thoroughly exhausted. I ask that they take every measure to insure that the persons being detained and interogated are actually persons who most probably have valuable, potentially lifesaving information to disclose. I ask that the interogators not indulge in the base human impulse to inflict suffering for the sake of suffering, out of an impulse to exact revenge, or just for sick self-amusement. I ask that they use the least physically damaging techniques possible in order to gather information, that they remember that when they do what they do, they aren’t wearing a halo, that no one will come out of this unscathed. But, even as I write this, I realize that all of this may be too much to ask. That’s why I’m extremely saddened by the reality with which we’re faced. There are no easy answers, certainly no black and white ones.</p>

<p>When I asked what techniques the current government may be using, which may account for the lack of further attacks since 9/11, I wasn’t just speaking of torture. I was thinking about ALL the tactics and strategies we employ in an effort to keep the hounds at bay. It seems that every safeguarding effort the current presidential administration undertakes is summarily critcised along party lines by some, and given a wholesale rubberstamp by others. As always, extreme positions tend not to benefit the majority. It seems like a good idea to me to honestly question, and reexamine our methods and motivations when it comes to tackling the balance between freedom and security. I don’t happen to number among those who believe that to question the current administration is tatamount to “siding with terrorists”. But I’m also not so partisan as to not understand that ANY presidency, post 9/11, must wrestle with tough decisions when it comes to the issue of national security.</p>

76

<p>“Personally, I believe in certain absolute moral standards, and I cannot condone torture. It is simply wrong.”</p>

<p>It’s yr 2009 and there are 5 Hiroshima sized 15 kiliton bombs planted in 5 american cities believed to be set to explode simulataneously within 24 hrs, precise whereabouts unknown, and the Al Qeada operatives are caught - and liberals wouldn’t torture then? Five million people incinerated would be their preference no doubt</p>

<p>I pray the dems never again control the security of the United States</p>

<p>Strange that these left wing america-haters have as their primary enemy George Bush -when an avowed terrorist group would consider it a great victory (“God willing”) if every infidel child under the age of 5 in america had his/her throat slit</p>

<p>Right, we just need to understand them more</p>

77

<p>Poetsheart, I appreciate your thoughtful post (#75), but who are the “those” you are referring to in the following quote? </p>

<p>“I’m always somewhat bemused by those who show a sort of PC tolerance for the brand of religious fanaticism that would result in us all being blown to smithereens via rougue nuclear devices (or devastatinginly peicemeal, via lesser means of mass destruction), at the hands of Islamic terrorists, but wring their hands in anguish, and knash their teeth in panic over a few Fundamentalist Christians interning in Congress. I have to marvel at the cognitive dissonance that allows this type of contradictary thinking.” </p>

<p>And Citation X, I don’t know what to say about your last post from which I quote the following, except that apparently it is not possible to criticize any position taken by the present administration without being accused of hating the president and supporting terrorists:</p>

<p>"I pray the dems never again control the security of the United States</p>

<p>Strange that these left wing america-haters have as their primary enemy George Bush -when an avowed terrorist group would consider it a great victory (“God willing”) if every infidel child under the age of 5 in america had his/her throat slit</p>

<p>Right, we just need to understand them more"</p>

78

<p>I think we can understand the existential danger, without believing that we need to torture any “potential” (since they can prove neither their innocence or guilt) terrorist, who really might just be a regular Joe dad working person. We’ll never know though, since habeus corpus is no longer afforded to these people.</p>

79

<p>Waterboarding is a war crime and is seen as such by the U.S. Government.
See:</p>

<p><a href=“Socrates and Berkeley Scholars Web Hosting Services Have Been Retired | Web Platform Services”>Socrates and Berkeley Scholars Web Hosting Services Have Been Retired | Web Platform Services;

<p>Defendant: Asano, Yukio</p>

<p>Docket Date: 53/ May 1 - 28, 1947, Yokohama, Japan</p>

<p>Charge: Violation of the Laws and Customs of War: 1. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture PWs. 2. Did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for PWs.</p>

<p>Specifications:beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; **water torture;**burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward</p>

80

<p>so you are willing to spare one murderer the pain and suffering he will inflict on a 100 innocent people given the opportunity to not undergo coercive interrogation</p>