Rumsfeld signed papers allowing torture

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: sdy284

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Maybe we should just cut their heads off, the world doesnt seem to view that as torture.

exactly!

I'm sorry, but if torturing a few people means that the rest of the country is safer as a result of the information provided by those being tortured...then its fine by me

Ahhh....the old "The ends justify the means" strawman. Or is this the old "At least we aren't as bad as they are" strawman?

I always mix the two up.

The fact of the matter is that we are supposed to be the shining example of what a country should strive to be. If we, as a population, condone these types of torture techniques, then we have lost all claims to that.

If you would like to live in a barbaric "An eye for an eye" world, then you can simply pack up and move to the Middle East or a lot of African countries or villages. I'm sure that you can find enough places there where you can live out your fear-driven vigilante existence.

As for me, I expect those that are representing me to abide by the rule of law and not use semantics to circumvent it. If you want to split hairs between whether someone is a POW or an "enemy combatant" that's just fine. But do it in a court of law and give the opposition a chance to present their arguments against it. Don't have your yes-man "Justice" department come up with new terminology and declare it lawful and all encompassing until it has been determined to be such.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: maluckey
So where's the proof? Where is the accusation that Rummy advocated more than is listed in the above article, which isn't torture at all. I've been through worse at the DMV!!

Besides the above post, which answers your question, I will add a second. This was both signed and ratified by the US.

"Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by
General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984
entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27 (1)

PART I

Article 1

1. 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.

Violated by the US? Yes.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Violated by the US? Yes.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

Violated by the US? Yes.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3 General comment on its implementation

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

Violated by the US? Yes.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Violated by the US? Yes.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

I posted this above: 18 U.S.C. § 2340A
"

source

My editorial in italics.

 

[CPA]

Good for Rumsfeld.

 

[sdy284]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
If you would like to live in a barbaric "An eye for an eye" world, then you can simply pack up and move to the Middle East or a lot of African countries or villages. I'm sure that you can find enough places there where you can live out your fear-driven vigilante existence.

so if torturing one man in order to get crucial information to prevent 9/11...you wouldn't want to do that?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: sdy284

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
If you would like to live in a barbaric "An eye for an eye" world, then you can simply pack up and move to the Middle East or a lot of African countries or villages. I'm sure that you can find enough places there where you can live out your fear-driven vigilante existence.

so if torturing one man in order to get crucial information to prevent 9/11...you wouldn't want to do that?

It's a really stupid hypothetical question that you are posing but I will play along anyway.

No because, short of having OBL or Al-Zawahiri themselves in custody, you would never have been able to prevent 9/11.

Do you really believe that common foot soldiers have even a remote guess of how big of an ordeal they are involved in?

Your turn to play along.....

Should every single PFC (or similar rank) in our military or U.S. citizen that is captured and/or kidnapped be violently tortured because they might be able to provide information that prevents the next Bush pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign country that didn't do anything to threaten our immediate security.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The OP may be attempting to glorify the article.

Based on what the Rueters article states he authorized certain harsh methods.

Those methods do not seemto come close to the definition of torture, possibly coercion.
Were these people prisoners of war. That has not yet been decided?

tell me, what is the definition of torture?

There is no absolute definition of torture.

For some, if something makes you uncomfortable, it could be classified as torture.
For others, stepping on your toe or yelling at you.
The line can be drawn anywhere one chooses to based on ones beliefs and opinions.
And will vary between people.

The Geneva convention specifically calls this reference to torture in that a person is not to be treated in a certain way if they are a "POW".

As stated before, are these people also falling under the classification of a POW?

Well, if the War on Terror is actually a War, as the administration loves to argue, and these people were taken prisoner as a result of that war...then yes, they are prisoners of war in every sense of the word.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Not a big supporter of Rummy, but do you guys seriously believe everything you read?

I don't, but i don't refuse to believe everything I read either. This seems rather believable considering the sources involved.

Really? Because of the sources involved or because it backs up your hatred towards Rummy?

Really

 

[slash196]

Yeah, this is from the mouth of a GENERAL, the general who was in charge of Abu Ghraib at the time of the abuses. I don't think you can get a more reliable source than that.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: sdy284

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Maybe we should just cut their heads off, the world doesnt seem to view that as torture.

exactly!

I'm sorry, but if torturing a few people means that the rest of the country is safer as a result of the information provided by those being tortured...then its fine by me

How about if torturing a few people doesn't yield a damn thing?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Really, I detest this administration as much as the next person, but come on. Eaglekeeper has some good points. First, what we hear is someone who got in trouble saying what they saw. Ok, I saw space aliens abduct Nancy Pelosi. No, really! Well, no. But if one is inclined to believe something they will. By condemning Rumsfeld on this you do precisely what you accuse him and the administration of, namely taking someones second hand word for it. The preponderence of evidence is against him. Making declaritive statements without evidence doesn't do much for me. We all pretty much know what Rummy is.

As far as what was supposedly outlined as torture, I agree with EagleKeeper. To me that's coercion but not torture. Here's some mental torture. Take a suspect, and capture his wife and a child or two children. Tell him he has to push a button that will kill one or the other. Tell him that if he doesn't choose, both die. Force him to kill one or the other or else both. Just as he reaches for the button stop him. Take him away and deride him for wanting to murder whichever one he decided to kill. Repeat often. Oh, the "gag". Neither one was in real danger. It was a ploy. Is that torture? Yep it is. There are many other things which can be done of course.

As far as physical torture, that can take on some creative forms as well. I won't go into some I know of, but suffice it to say that there are individuals who have an highly creative and sadistic nature and are happy to put it to use in a much crueler way than loud music. Do I approve? No, but what I am doing is suggesting what torture really means so the word doesn't have it's effect cheapened when it really happens.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Really, I detest this administration as much as the next person, but come on. Eaglekeeper has some good points. First, what we hear is someone who got in trouble saying what they saw. Ok, I saw space aliens abduct Nancy Pelosi. No, really! Well, no. But if one is inclined to believe something they will. By condemning Rumsfeld on this you do precisely what you accuse him and the administration of, namely taking someones second hand word for it. The preponderence of evidence is against him. Making declaritive statements without evidence doesn't do much for me. We all pretty much know what Rummy is.

As far as what was supposedly outlined as torture, I agree with EagleKeeper. To me that's coercion but not torture. Here's some mental torture. Take a suspect, and capture his wife and a child or two children. Tell him he has to push a button that will kill one or the other. Tell him that if he doesn't choose, both die. Force him to kill one or the other or else both. Just as he reaches for the button stop him. Take him away and deride him for wanting to murder whichever one he decided to kill. Repeat often. Oh, the "gag". Neither one was in real danger. It was a ploy. Is that torture? Yep it is. There are many other things which can be done of course.

As far as physical torture, that can take on some creative forms as well. I won't go into some I know of, but suffice it to say that there are individuals who have an highly creative and sadistic nature and are happy to put it to use in a much crueler way than loud music. Do I approve? No, but what I am doing is suggesting what torture really means so the word doesn't have it's effect cheapened when it really happens.

That's nice. You are wrong on every point you made. Try reading the thread a little.

Anyone else care to take a crack at this?

 

[Lemon law]

The USA--somewhat led by our attorney general and similar types are really pulling a George Orwell horror story with language---and then claiming its vague. The letter and spirit of the Geneva convention is almost crystal clear---and the techniques used like gang rape and waterboarding are unconscionable---yet they go on--out of sight---out of mind. And what we end up actually accidentally seeing is a tip of the iceberg.

And these jerks who are our leaders count on the US army to protect them---when international law is quite clear---those in charge who know about but don't take active steps to prevent abuse are held the most accountable.

 

[ericlp]

How many think that he will be the first person bush with pardon?

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: ericlp
How many think that he will be the first person bush with pardon?

He will never be charged with anything and won't need a pardon.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Really, I detest this administration as much as the next person, but come on. Eaglekeeper has some good points. First, what we hear is someone who got in trouble saying what they saw. Ok, I saw space aliens abduct Nancy Pelosi. No, really! Well, no. But if one is inclined to believe something they will. By condemning Rumsfeld on this you do precisely what you accuse him and the administration of, namely taking someones second hand word for it. The preponderence of evidence is against him. Making declaritive statements without evidence doesn't do much for me. We all pretty much know what Rummy is.

As far as what was supposedly outlined as torture, I agree with EagleKeeper. To me that's coercion but not torture. Here's some mental torture. Take a suspect, and capture his wife and a child or two children. Tell him he has to push a button that will kill one or the other. Tell him that if he doesn't choose, both die. Force him to kill one or the other or else both. Just as he reaches for the button stop him. Take him away and deride him for wanting to murder whichever one he decided to kill. Repeat often. Oh, the "gag". Neither one was in real danger. It was a ploy. Is that torture? Yep it is. There are many other things which can be done of course.

As far as physical torture, that can take on some creative forms as well. I won't go into some I know of, but suffice it to say that there are individuals who have an highly creative and sadistic nature and are happy to put it to use in a much crueler way than loud music. Do I approve? No, but what I am doing is suggesting what torture really means so the word doesn't have it's effect cheapened when it really happens.

That's nice. You are wrong on every point you made. Try reading the thread a little.

Anyone else care to take a crack at this?

I apologize. You are right. Rumsfeld is a saint. Performing the acts I described are not torture, and when people were flayed alive in VN that wasn't torture. I appreciate you pointing that out.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Really, I detest this administration as much as the next person, but come on. Eaglekeeper has some good points. First, what we hear is someone who got in trouble saying what they saw. Ok, I saw space aliens abduct Nancy Pelosi. No, really! Well, no. But if one is inclined to believe something they will. By condemning Rumsfeld on this you do precisely what you accuse him and the administration of, namely taking someones second hand word for it. The preponderence of evidence is against him. Making declaritive statements without evidence doesn't do much for me. We all pretty much know what Rummy is.

As far as what was supposedly outlined as torture, I agree with EagleKeeper. To me that's coercion but not torture. Here's some mental torture. Take a suspect, and capture his wife and a child or two children. Tell him he has to push a button that will kill one or the other. Tell him that if he doesn't choose, both die. Force him to kill one or the other or else both. Just as he reaches for the button stop him. Take him away and deride him for wanting to murder whichever one he decided to kill. Repeat often. Oh, the "gag". Neither one was in real danger. It was a ploy. Is that torture? Yep it is. There are many other things which can be done of course.

As far as physical torture, that can take on some creative forms as well. I won't go into some I know of, but suffice it to say that there are individuals who have an highly creative and sadistic nature and are happy to put it to use in a much crueler way than loud music. Do I approve? No, but what I am doing is suggesting what torture really means so the word doesn't have it's effect cheapened when it really happens.

That's nice. You are wrong on every point you made. Try reading the thread a little.

Anyone else care to take a crack at this?

I apologize. You are right. Rumsfeld is a saint. Performing the acts I described are not torture, and when people were flayed alive in VN that wasn't torture. I appreciate you pointing that out.

You just proved you didn't even bother reading the thread. Which is my point.