Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[kandrathe]

As usual, your links show little to nothing to support your case. How do you suppose Mr. King achieves his goal? By instructing readers to get 'background' information about other players before the game, or by telling them how to interpret the moves they make during?

Both. Even if your opponent is a total stranger, during the game you will learn about their play style, and hopefully, will be able to adapt your strategy to take advantage of what you learn about your opponent. If you forgot my original point, it was that in diplomacy, international brinkmanship, or the game of chess, you don't "win" by reacting to what is on the table. You win by predicting what will happen in the future, and which moves you can make to result in a favorable outcome. You win by positioning yourself such that all outcomes are favorable. So, while it is informative to review the history up to the present of North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Al Queda, or other potential threats to national security, the art of international diplomacy will be to predict the future, and position the US and allies such that there are the least negative consequences for our near term actions. This is why the Bush administration failed at diplomacy. They were only ever reacting to past actions, and did a poor job in predicting the consequences of their near term actions.

I am an advocate that the US does "act" according to what it predicts its allies and enemies will do in the future, but I'd also constrain the US to act within it's principles.

So, just what are American principles? Here are what I believe they should be, however, the Obama, and Bush administrations would probably both disagree for different reasons, but primarily because their common idea of government is one that tramples on individual liberty. I do believe though that if people stopped for a moment and considered them, rather than being concerned about the D-ness or R-ness, then they might agree.

Here they are conveniently summarized by ( J. Neil Schulman);

1. Allow for disagreement.

2. Punish people only for the bad things they've already done.

3. Live and Let Live.

[Jester]

Here they are conveniently summarized by ( J. Neil Schulman);

1. Allow for disagreement.

2. Punish people only for the bad things they've already done.

3. Live and Let Live.

Are you sure you haven't confused "America" with "Ayn Rand"?

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . let me point out that the review doesn´t mean predict what your specific opponent would do.

Exactly. Even when studying a book of mid game positions, with no information about the specific game or the players, one still has to consider what the opponent can do and try to predict what an opponent would do. However, in actual play, it is nice to know more about your opponent. Is he a cautious type that will not take advantage of a risky opportunity? Will he go for the gambit? Does he play the knights better than the bishops (or conversely)? Is he under time pressure, and is he the type that folds under that pressure?

Not all the information about a chess game is contained in the record of moves. At least, not for humans.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Are you sure you haven't confused "America" with "Ayn Rand"?

Actually, Ayn, in her belief system allows for suspension of principles in times of emergency. Whereas, I would say that in those cases of suspension of your principles, you cease to be anything but a mammal in defense of your den.

[Zenda]

No. The United Nations Convention Against Torture standard is "severe mental or physical pain."

You are right, my wording wasn't accurate enough. It should have been "Any action, extreme enough to force someone...". As Pete said earlier in this thread:

Clearly, if someone has information you want, and he doesn't want to give it to you, you are going to either 'force' it out of him or do without. Saying 'pretty please' isn't going to do it.

If you want torture to 'work' you'll have to go to some extremes, so trying to place a 'line' is futile. If you let ethics and civilization count, you will end up with something that is quite impractical.

Consider the old Geneva Convention rules on this matter. It wasn't Amnesty International who made them up. It was *military* guys who realized that the remote chance of ever getting something useful from torture did not weigh up to the negative implications. What they had in mind was getting 'information about the enemy', but times have changed. Nowadays, the purpose of torture is to obtain 'threads', and unfortunately, that is much easier. As mentioned earlier, torture is very efficient in getting lots of information, of any type you want. I provided a link earlier, but in case you missed it: http://www.juancole.com/2006/10/craig-murr...ing-terror.html

Were they POWs, they would have immunity. But, many of those captured in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq fail to meet the criteria for being POWs, and therefore are covered under civilian law.

Now that's a strange remark, if you think about it. You think that people in a military uniform have more Human Rights then others? Does that mean that all Americans with a weapon and not in the army should be considered 'unlawful' combatant, if some enemy military force would set foot on American soil? And what happened the right of civilians to remain silent, because "... anything you say, can and will be used against you"?

[Jester]

Now that's a strange remark, if you think about it. You think that people in a military uniform have more Human Rights then others? Does that mean that all Americans with a weapon and not in the army should be considered 'unlawful' combatant, if some enemy military force would set foot on American soil? And what happened the right of civilians to remain silent, because "... anything you say, can and will be used against you"?

It's not a "strange remark". It's the nature of international law, where the UN has passed a series of moderately strong treaties governing human rights generally, but the Geneva Conventions have even stronger prohibitions against mistreatment of POWs. I don't believe that this is how things ought to remain, but then, you were arguing about what is legal under international law. Uniformed soldiers have more rigorously protected rights under *international* law than do most civilians.

As for "unlawful combatants", I personally think the phrase is a piece of sophistry that ought to be relegated to the dustbin of history. Either someone is a POW, in which case they must be treated as such, or they are a civilian prisoner, and are entitled to the rule of law according to the country holding them captive. It would probably be quite a stretch to say that they are entitled to strict Miranda rights on a battlefield halfway around the world. What they are entitled to would be determined (in this case) by US law, not by international law, so long as the one did not violate the other.

By the by, militias, even ones which have not had reasonable time to form into orderly troops, are covered by the Third Geneva Convention. "Americans with guns" would be POWs if they were organized in militias, or if it were unreasonable to expect them to have organized yet. If they were just random people taking potshots, then they would be civilian prisoners (or "unlawful combatants", if you like.)

-Jester

[Zenda]

It looked strange because you seemed to imply that military personnel is protected from torture while civilians are not.

"Uniformed soldiers have more rigorously protected rights under *international* law than do most civilians."

It is true that these international laws provide protection for uniforms which cilivians lack. But the reasoning behind it is that soldiers need such extra protection when they are fighting on foreign grounds, while civilians are already covered by the laws of the country where they try to live their lives. Harmful actions by military against civilians is always disallowed, be it execution, deportation or torture. In this view, militia members are not civilians, and random people taking potshots should be carried over to the local police.

"As for 'unlawful combatants', I personally think the phrase is a piece of sophistry that ought to be relegated to the dustbin of history."

I certainly agree with you there.

[Occhidiangela]

No. The United Nations Convention Against Torture standard is "severe mental or physical pain." It also bans "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment. There are plenty of interrogation methods, whereby you "force someone to do something against their will" by giving up information, that are neither torture nor otherwise banned.

In other words, the country club standard is required.

Sorry, UN is in epic fail mode yet again. (And as a senior member of that club, the US is in part to blame for that. They let pretty much any old dog and cat into the club. Part of the problem, about to be replicated in NATO.)

I note from your citing of the regs the nebulous terms it uses, open for political interpretation.

Funny old thing, when the US applies that option, interpretation, I hear the usual suspects scream "war crime" at the top of their lungs.

Sorry, UN regs are nice as bird cage liner.

Quelle surprise

Occhi

[Thecla]

In other words, the country club standard is required.

Please, Occhi. The debate is nothing to do with the UN imposing "country club" values on the US. It's to do with the US torture of terrorists, which --- I remind you --- is illegal under US law.

[Occhidiangela]

Please, Occhi. The debate is nothing to do with the UN imposing "country club" values on the US. It's to do with the US torture of terrorists, which --- I remind you --- is illegal under US law.

I see a great deal of discussion along these lines. Would you do me the courtesy of citing the law in question, rather than a general principle? IF it were that simple, the charges would have already been written up, don't you think?

Occhi drives too fast.

Officer writes ticket

Charge: driving too fast (here we cite Texas or Virginia or California state law on speed limits, code x section y)

Now, please succinctly outline what it is you think the statute is that the charge will be written against.


Remainder of poste dited: not sure why I am wasting my time.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

Occhi drives too fast.

I guessed that. I do too. Do you remember my comment about velocity tax? :)

You hit the nail on the head with your comment. It comes down to the 2002 Rumsfeld / Justice department discussion;<blockquote>"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign ... (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in chief authority," the Justice Department report asserted. (The parenthetical comment is in the original document.) The Justice Department "concluded that it could not bring a criminal prosecution against a defendant who had acted pursuant to an exercise of the president's constitutional power," the report said. Citing confidential Justice Department opinions drafted after Sept. 11, 2001, the report advised that the executive branch of the government had "sweeping" powers to act as it sees fit because "national security decisions require the unity in purpose and energy in action that characterize the presidency rather than Congress."</blockquote>Bush pushed the definition of unlimited Presidential power in war to the point where the Congress and a vast number of people in the US public became uncomfortable. It's resulted in the "Change" candidate getting elected, who now faced with the same issues, is also exercising his unlimited Presidential power. Although, it seems this president doesn't seem to be limiting his vast unlimited powers to terrorism, military and foreign issues. Did you ever think that in America you would see the headline "REPORT: Obama administration slashes Chrysler ad budget by 50%? Maybe Chrysler won't need to advertise, since it might be that a Chrysler/Dodge electric or hybrid's will be handed out by the thousands in government transportation programs. Or, perhaps, his plan for change will obsolete the automobile, and deliver us all to the sophisticated, urban, high rise, high density housing with mass transit hubs.

Bush at least could be counted on to speak consistently from only one orifice at a time.

[Zenda]

You hit the nail on the head with your comment.

Assuming you don't mean the comments on driving habits, do you also believe your country has no law against torture? If so, aren't you being too negative? :P

The Eighth Amendment of your Constitution includes torture, ofcourse. However, it applies only to people on American soil (regardless of nationality, btw). For situations outside the USA there is section 2340A of Chapter 113C of USC 18.

IF it were that simple, the charges would have already been written up, don't you think?

That's what Guantanamo and other shady places are for: to keep things out of reach from your own laws. Surely *you* must know that.

[Jester]

You hit the nail on the head with your comment. It comes down to the 2002 Rumsfeld / Justice department discussion...

Does it? Because that opinion didn't appear to last very long when it got to the courts. If it comes down to Bybee, then it's on some pretty shaky ground.

-Jester

[Zenda]

Maybe Chrysler won't need to advertise, since it might be that a Chrysler/Dodge electric or hybrid's will be handed out by the thousands in government transportation programs. Or, perhaps, his plan for change will obsolete the automobile, and deliver us all to the sophisticated, urban, high rise, high density housing with mass transit hubs.

Or maybe some people felt they shouldn't use 134 million taxpayer dollars to paint a pretty picture for the benefit of Chrysler's stockholders?

From your AutoBlog link ("we obsessively cover the auto industry" :whistling:):

Chrysler Marketing and Sales Vice President Steven Landry defended the decision to spend on advertising during the bankruptcy saying that the move "gives us the opportunity to reinforce that it's business as usual and demonstrate a bright future ahead for Chrysler."

A response to that, also from your link:

One commenter on Advertising Age took "business as usual" as a bad thing, as that mentality lead to "cars no one wanted to buy, zero innovation, outdated labor practices and a lot of taxpayer money thrown in to keep a sinking ship from going under."

But I guess you can blame Obama for everything, even if you would have done the same:blink:

[kandrathe]

The Eighth Amendment of your Constitution includes torture, of course. However, it applies only to people on American soil (regardless of nationality, btw). For situations outside the USA there is section 2340A of Chapter 113C of USC 18.

The Bill of Rights does apply to everyone on US soil, but I would argue that some constitutional rights only apply to citizens of the US, or those in the process of becoming citizens. Since immigration is an administrative action, the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. So, indefinite incarceration, or deportation to the nation/prison of US choice is also an option for illegal aliens on US soil.

The Justice Department memo I referred to was a discussion between them and the DOD on the limits of presidential power in the event of a National Security threat. By precedence, the president has in the past suspended individuals constitutional rights, and has set aside sections of USC in the interests of national security. In fact, I believe one intention of the memo was to warn the DOD on the exact boundaries of the law to prevent them from straying over the line.

[Jester]

The Bill of Rights does apply to everyone on US soil, but I would argue that some constitutional rights only apply to citizens of the US, or those in the process of becoming citizens. Since immigration is an administrative action, the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. So, indefinite incarceration, or deportation to the nation/prison of US choice is also an option for illegal aliens on US soil.

The supreme court has explicitly rejected the argument that the US does not have to grant Habeas Corpus rights to detainees. If they're being held, they get their day in court, at least to the extent guaranteed by the third Geneva convention. If they are US citizens, which some are, then they are entitled to their full constitutional rights, regardless of whether they're in Guantanamo or not. Indefinite incarceration is *not* legal.

Extraordinary rendition, on the other hand, appears to just be common practice. (Thanks, Bill Clinton! Thanks a million.) Whether it is moral or legal does not seem to have been a very important question for the CIA. So, maybe you can ship people off to wherever you like, where they will have no rights, so long as you're sure they won't be tortured there, which would violate the Geneva Conventions. I'm sure a wink and a nod is more than enough, I mean, who ever heard of someone being tortured in a human rights paradise like Uzbekistan?

Obama has made some moves to correct this, but not enough. Panetta has been fairly strong in claiming that the CIA no longer runs secret prisons at black sites in dubious locations, and hopefully, that means a broad rejection of torture-by-rendition. We'll see, these things have a way of continuing.

The Justice Department memo I referred to was a discussion between them and the DOD on the limits of presidential power in the event of a National Security threat. By precedence, the president has in the past suspended individuals constitutional rights, and has set aside sections of USC in the interests of national security. In fact, I believe one intention of the memo was to warn the DOD on the exact boundaries of the law to prevent them from straying over the line.

That seems a rather naive interpretation. If they were so concerned about where the line might actually be, why'd they bother to seek out a sycophant like John Yoo? The memo has been widely trashed from all sides as an almost comical stretch of the president's authority. It didn't even mention the relevant precedent, Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, which just happens to restrain presidential authority. Funny how he just plum forgot about that one. A more realistic conclusion would be that the memo was to give ground cover for methods that the administration wanted to use, but which would very likely be seen as "over the line": waterboarding, walling, sleep deprivation, and so on. They knew perfectly well where the line used to be, and knew they wanted to cross it. So they blurred it with a dubious legal opinion, and knew that by the day of reckoning, they'd have already done what they wanted to do. Iraq needed invading, and that meant stepping up the interrogations.

-Jester

[Thecla]

I see a great deal of discussion along these lines. Would you do me the courtesy of citing the law in question, rather than a general principle?

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, Section 2340A

But it was not my intention to engage in a legal debate. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on the internet. 'Twas the "country club" reference that drew my ire. Let's make no bones about the fact that the US has engaged in torture.

_______________

"But, Officer, driving at 100mph isn't speeding, it's simply moving at an enhanced veclocity."

[Jester]

To paint the lily, treaties ratified by the US have the force of federal law, until congress overrides them.

So, the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention Against Torture are not just general principles. They are US law.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

'Twas the "country club" reference that drew my ire. Let's make no bones about the fact that the US has engaged in torture.

Hmmm, well, I guess I've been tortured too then. But, never while in custody, just by the school bullies, assorted riff raff, and my 10th grade gym teacher. Oh, and I guess I should count various project managers who kept me awake for over 96 hours around deadline crunch times. I must have grown up in an era and area where people were made a little tougher.

I guess I should have sued them for mental anguish.

[Thecla]

Hmmm, well, I guess I've been tortured too then. But, never while in custody, just by the school bullies, assorted riff raff, and my 10th grade gym teacher. Oh, and I guess I should count various project managers who kept me awake for over 96 hours around deadline crunch times. I must have grown up in an era and area where people were made a little tougher.

From the leaked ICRC report here is part of Khaled Shaik Mohammed's description of his experiences while in CIA custody.

It was here that the most intense interrogation occurred, led by three experienced CIA interrogators, all over 65 years old and all strong and well trained. There were the “emirs.” Although of course they never revealed their own names, I gave them names by which I could refer to them, all beginning with ‘Abu’. I think that ‘Abu Captain’ was of South American origin, whereas ‘Abu Hanan’ was perhaps of Moroccan origin and ‘Abu White’ was of Eastern European descent.

As the interrogation again resumed I was told by one of the “emirs” that they had received the green-light from Washington to give him “a hard time”. They never used the word “torture” and never referred to “physical pressure”, only to “a hard time”, I was never threatened with death, in fact I was told that they would not allow me to die, but that I would be brought to the “verge of death and back again”.

Apart from when I was taken for interrogation to another room, I was kept for one month in the cell in a standing position with my hands cuffed and shackled above my head and my feet cuffed and shackled to a point in the floor. Of course during this month I fell asleep on some occasions while still being held in this position. This resulted in all my weight being applied to the handcuffs around my wrists resulting in open and bleeding wounds. The cuffs around my ankles also created open, bleeding wounds. [Scars consistent with this allegation were visible on both wrists as well as on both ankles.] Both my feet became very swollen after one month of almost continual standing.

Initially I was interrogated for approximately eight hours each day. This gradually became less until after one month it was about four hours each day.

For the interrogation I was taken to a separate room. The number of people present varied greatly from one day to another. Other interrogators, including women, were also sometimes present along with the ‘emirs’. A doctor was also usually present. If was perceived not to be cooperating I would be put against a wall and punched and slapped in the body, head and face. A thick flexible plastic collar would also be placed around my neck so that it could then be held at the two ends by a guard who would use
it to slam me repeatedly against the wall. The beatings were combined with the use of cold water, which was poured over me using a hose-pipe. The beatings and use of cold water occurred on a daily basis during the first month.

In addition I was also subjected to ‘water-boarding’ on five occasions, all of which occurred during that first month. I would be strapped to a special bed, which could be\ rotated into a vertical position. A cloth would be placed over my face. Cold water
from a bottle that had been kept in a fridge was then poured onto the cloth by one of the guards so that I could not breathe. This obviously could only be done for one or two minutes at a time. The cloth was then removed and the bed was put into a vertical
position. The whole process was then repeated during about one hour. Injuries to my ankles and wrists also occurred during the water-boarding as I struggled in the panic of not being able to breathe. Female interrogators were also present during this form of
ill-treatment and a doctor was always present, standing out of sight behind the head of bed, but I saw him when he came to fix a clip to my finger which was connected to a machine. I think it was to measure my pulse and oxygen content in my blood. So they
could take me to breaking point.

After each session of torture I was put into a cell where I was allowed to lie on the floor and could sleep for a few minutes. However, due to shackles on my ankles and wrists I was never able to sleep very well.

The harshest period of the interrogation was just prior to the end of the first month. The beatings became worse and I had cold water directed at me from a hose-pipe by guards while I was still in my cell. The worst day was when I was beaten for about half
an hour by one of the interrogators. My head was banged against the wall so hard that it started to bleed. Cold water was poured over my head. This was then repeated with other interrogators. Finally I was taken for a session of water boarding. The torture on
that day was finally stopped by the intervention of the doctor. I was allowed to sleep for about one hour and then put back in my cell standing with my hands shackled above my head.