Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Sorry, I hadn't seen the update following your call with Wyden's office. And don't worry, I don't for a moment feel that your ire is directed at me!
I think the point you made about gradual Democrat backtracking resonates more clearly, dropping the demand for the AFM as the sole standard for detainee treatment is a nasty reminder of how the dreadful FISA "compromise" emerged over time.
Maybe if you have the chance you can get Feinstein's people to explain what she meant by "effectively ban" - to check that it has the same meaning as just plain "ban". And indeed if they plan to stop using the AFM as a benchmark, how exactly they intend to implement the standards they have so vocally advocated.
I keep channeling Molly Ivins. Now, there was a voice that rang out against torture. I hope she is still around us in spirit to see if anyone has the balls to step up and do the right thing for this country.
March in the streets! Bang on kitchen pots and pans! Shout it to the whole world. " We are Americans and we will not torture!!" We as a country are better than that! And we should be proud of that and we should have no fear in calling out the evildoers who would condone torture. Grow a spine, America! And do it quickly!
1. You should change all sworn oaths to require the officer/office-holder to protect and defend your country and its people;
and
2. Your government should take the steps necessary for declaring war on terror.
In this way, everyone would have their priorities straight and the Geneva Conventions would otherwise apply to govern your aggression.
"a law that effectively bans torture."- Feinstein
In an era where the Army/CIA/Military routinely enlist the misuse of the medical field (psychiatry and medical doctors) to perpetrate particular techniques upon certain "terrorist" "detainees", is there any wonder they've succeeded in obscuring what constitutes torture?
There is no ambiguity in what the AFM and GC codified decades ago as constituting torture. We all know what it is. The moment we place our lives and those we love under the power of some trained or untrained interrogator who feels they're on a mission for god and country, the machismo and bravado crumbles.
As written earlier in my comments- You can't resist the harshest assaults to the body and mind for extensive periods. You will be destroyed physically and mentally, unless, of course you're Robert Patrick in "Terminator II."
I'm older than GG, so I find those inevitable adjectives really amusing now, although they burned in my younger years. They don't know how to answer you, because you're absolutely correct, therefore they attack your sanity/personality/ancestry whatevah. "You're ugly & your mama dresses you funny". It's tragic, but still true all these years after kindergarten.
The only difference between idealism & reality is choice. Mr. Alexander & many others have testified to the truth that aside from all else, torture doesn't work. Your reasoning about the AFM is spot on.
These Dems can choose to try & live noble REALISTIC ideals or they can attempt to justify being weasels. I'm sorry to say, I've always found DiFi ultimately a weasel, although I don't know much about Wyden. For myself, I must continue to believe (as long as possible) that Obama is what he's said & will guide this country back to where we should be, although he'll age 2 centuries in the process, poor fellow.
Shazam Andy! I think she is mad!
(not that I blame her at all)
'In an era where the Army/CIA/Military routinely enlist the misuse of the medical field (psychiatry and medical doctors) to perpetrate particular techniques upon certain "terrorist" "detainees", is there any wonder they've succeeded in obscuring what constitutes torture?'
As Jane Mayer noted in her reporting and in The Dark Side, James Mitchell - a retired military psychologist who had worked for the CIA studying illegal torture methods and how to resist them, aka the SERE progam - was brought in by the CIA to head up the interrogation of Abu Zubayda.
If you see her, please tell Pedinska that she's been nominated for the "Righteous Outrage Award".
Then, take appropriate cover at a safe distance from the latrine.
One aspect of this issue (an aspect under-discussed even in progressive circles) is why the U.S. tortures. Torture is useless for intelligence-gathering, but very useful for intimidating and terrorizing populations you want to control --like say in the countries you're occupying.
So, just to be clear, you believe that the law should explicitly allow torture in extreme situations, and then we trust our Government leaders to torture only when it's warranted and appropriate.Even though you're afraid to put it that way, that's exactly what you're advocating, right?
And how is that different from what Bush/Cheney/Addington/Yoo believe? Answer: it's not. It's the same.
Well, you have evaded my efforts to move the discussion from the principle -- which is easy -- to the practical, which is anything but. I'll try again: If someone kidnapped my family and intended to kill them, if I caught someone else who knew where they were but wouldn't say, would I torture the captured person if that was the only way to get the information? I would.
Your pointed question about Bush/Cheney illustrates a shortcoming in your analysis generally. Not all situations can be governed by black & white laws. Maybe god works that way, but human beings don't. In a democracy there is ALWAYS some trust imparted to leaders; that is why abusing that trust is grounds for impeachment. Bush & Cheney knew no bounds and had no judgment; they did not reserve the worst case solution for the worst case scenario. Put otherwise, Bush/Cheney assumed that 9/11 ushered in an era of PERMANENT EMERGENCY (an oxymoron, of course), which entitled them, they believed, to do anything they wanted in the name of defense, indefinitely. That cannot and should not be permitted. That said, laws DO NOT and CAN NOT cover every situation that may arise in the real world.
Returning to your specific question about Bush/Cheney: The law re: torture should provide an exception for emergencies of the kind I identified (and you have not addressed). Even the criminal law recognizes "necessity" of this kind -- self-defense, defense of others. I assume this is what the senators are alluding to and, if so, I agree with them.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
