At 7/12/08 02:39 PM, adrshepard wrote:
So on the basis of one example you are declaring all interrogation to be useless? For one thing, it wasn't even Americans that were examining him, but Syrians. For all we know, their interrogators are inferior to ours and their more violent techniques are less effective.
Orr for all you know they are better than yours? A probe by the Canadian government also cleared him,a s well as Syrian intelligence officials. Are you telling me Canadian intelligence officials are in cohorts with Syrians?
Torture does not yield reliable information and is actually counterproductive in intelligence interrogations. This was the conclusion released by retired senior military interrogators and research psychologists during a press conference at Georgetown University......
The interrogators participating in the research have conducted interrogation and other human intelligence operations in various military operations, including Vietnam, Grenada, Desert Storm, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the ongoing war in Iraq. They maintained that, even in the most urgent situations, torture can not be considered a viable option. The involuntary circumstances of the disclosure would compromise the integrity of the information obtained.
Even military intelligence interrogators are saying it is unreliable. In some cases it may work, in other cases you get lies, and in some cases you get nothing. The problem is if you get a lie, how do you know its a lie, just something to get you to stop torturing them? What about when you torture people who genuinely do not have any information to give you?
Another thing to consider is how "torture," however you are defining it, can still be used if it's 90-100% ineffective? Do you think US interrogators don't acknowledge the possibility that subjects may say anything? I would imagine there are ways around that, but don't ask me what they are; I'm not an expert.
Yeah, try and beat it out of someone else, but even then, if they trained in how to resist torture, they could be telling them same pre-made lies. So in reality there is no way to find out if you are getting the truth or not until you take resources to actually go out and investigate it, wasting time and resources chasing ghosts, or end up bombing innocent people.
Secondly, I've already mentioned how the UN convention against torture doesn't apply.
yeah, it does. You can't just ignore law when it suits you to do so. You condemn other countries for torturing people, yet you are more than willing to do it, or get others to do it on your behalf. Whats the phrase, the kettle calling the the pot black?
My country is committed to upholding our national and international obligations to eradicate torture and to prevent cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. We also are committed to transparency about our policies and actions, and we hope other countries will be equally forthcoming. This is not just a legal obligation -- we are fulfilling a higher moral obligation, which our nation has embraced since its earliest days. Indeed, the United States is proud that it was among the leaders in the international community who established the Convention against Torture. ...
Our commitment to protecting individuals from abuses does not stop with torture. My government is similarly committed to investigating and prosecuting credible allegations of other such forms of unlawful treatment against persons in custody of law enforcement - including in the War on Terror.
So where were all the war crimes trials against the Germans for bombing and shelling British, French, and Americans during the night? I bet they lost a lot of sleep. And if you are calling noise with the intent to prevent sleep torture, then what would you call bombing with intent to kill?
Where is the prosecution of British and Americans for bombing Germans at night, I am sure a lot of Germans lost sleep too.
There is a difference between a battlefield and people being held in detention. The people you are holding are in custody are your responsibility to provide protect and the necessities of life. The UN Convention states It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. Incarceration alone is not torture. 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 clearly states mental and physical pain are both considered torture.
And provide to me a single piece of evidence based anywhere in US law that proves the President has the authority to over rule acts of congress, federal laws and international treaties to which the US is party to. As Commander-in-Chief, the President does not have this authority and is still bound by the laws of the country.
em>Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer President is still bound by the laws passed by Congress and Constitution, even in wartime. As Justice Jackson wrote "There are indications that the Constitution did not contemplate that the title Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy will constitute him also Commander in Chief of the country, its industries and its inhabitants...he has no monopoly of 'war powers,"