I won't trot out any justification for torture, there is none.

But allowing prisoners of war, or enemy combatants access to our court system is absurd. They should be held in military prisons and handled in accordance with established treaties and laws.

If we give them access to our courts, then Johnny Chochran want-a-bes will pervert justice and make a mockery of us while fighting a war. Our enemy would be able to fight a war against us in our own courts. Absurd!

Just another nail in the coffin AFAIC. I don't really think we want to win this thing. We keep taking steps to hamstring ourselves.

Just shows that the morons in senate have too much time on their hands. This is nothing but moral preening, trying to define solutions for problems that don't exist. Can anyone show what torture has been employed at Gitmo?

These senate a**wipes have time to discuss steroids in baseball and this "torture" crap, yet haven't had time to get ANYTHING about social security reform out of committee? These are their priorities?

"Also, it doesn't look like John McCain's "CIA exemption" made it into the final bill."

I think you mean Dick Cheney's CIA exemption.

No torture is other than morally repugnant. Here's the problem in the context of a scenario: I am an Infantry squad leader who has just captured an individual, who is not a member of any military, that was involved in an attack on my unit. He has information of a tactical nature that will allow me to proceed with my mission while preventing the ambush of my patrol. I am going to get that information, because I am charged with leading my troops. That means that their lives are too important to throw away. Cross-culturally, if a man is stripped, blindfolded and bound, surrounded by a group of men who laugh at him and gently prod his junk with the muzzle of their rifles, he will become conversational. Is this torture? If the UN is allowed,or US courts are called upon to hold this treatment to the standard of United States civil law, yes. Those same bodies would also rule that anything short of providing him with a gourmet coffee, cigarette, backrub and cable TV is inhumane. Let me bottom line this for you guys in clean, dry suits; I'm going to protect my soldiers and accomplish the mission. If the people attacking me want to avoid mistreatment, there's no better way to do that than to put down their weapon and stay home. Otherwise, they bought the ticket and they're gonna take the ride.

I'd like to see a final description of what they are actually going to call torture. I bet, as a stay at home mom of 4, that, by their standards, I'm tortured on a regular basis... except that it isn't current members of the military or CIA who wake me up every 3 hours, or make me clean nasty messes, or stand for hours on end... or have food thrown at me when it isn't to their liking, clean the litter box...

But seriously, if the things they are calling torture are things that everyday people have to endure... why are they bothering? Just to get a nod in the press? How gauche.

The definitions in the bill are too vague. "degrading". "inhumanne" "brutal".
On one talk show, a guest listed a number of things which would not impress a fraternity initiation and the oppo said it wasn't allowed.

Is allowing a Koran to fall to the ground "degrading"? Of course not. Not until somebody wants to hammer the Bush administration. Then we'll have some faux outrage and the lefties can point to "degrading" and they will have a case that can be brought, if not won. But the PR will be wonderful.

Wretchard says the result is no more American interrogations at all, since there is no telling what will get an interrogator in trouble. Instead, what we'll have is routine immediate rendition. More torture, less oversight.

Great result from moral preening, assholes.

Preening morons in the Senate is correct.

Mark,
God bless you. I am weary of listening to the Vineyard Vine tie wearing intellectuals wax sooooo eloquently about this topic. More "what if's" than a Harvard professor at exam time. They can debate all they want, after the job is done, with or without panties on their head. Here's, my bottom line..Nobody wants to be in support of torture, but if the job needs to get done, so be it. Carry on.

Thank you Mark. This country needs more folks with their heads on straight like you.

Devil is in the details, of course. I think almost all of us agree that torture should be banned. We just have different ideas of what's torture.

A) That's unlikely as hell. B) Torture still might not get us any useful information. C) If it somehow did, then there's probably not a DA who would indict our torturer, and there's certainly no jury that would convict.

Ah, but what if the torture doesn't get us any useful information, even though the information is there? What if we have strong reason to suspect that there is a ticking time bomb, but our information is wrong? Then there absolutely would be a DA who would indict, and a jury who would convict.

Remember all those stories about FBI operatives and others who saw foreign nationals doing suspicious things with flight training in the US? And they weren't investigated because we didn't want to break laws on things like racial profiling-- even though agents had a very good reason to suspect that a ticking time bomb of sorts was going off. If they weren't willing to racially profile because it was illegal, even with very strong suspicions, what makes you think that they'd be willing to go as far as torture?

Especially when, as public opinion makes clear, the public is much more likely to forgive an attack and rally 'round the government (believing that it couldn't be avoided) than they are to forgive acting on incomplete information if that information turns out to be wrong, even if it was the best idea at the time.

No, I think almost all the incentives are set up poorly. I have no confidence whatsoever that torture would be used in a ticking time bomb case.

I don't know what the definition of torture is, but it should NOT include things that you can do to candidates on a military basic training course - yelling, humiliation, sleep-deprivation, disorientation and holding uncomforatble positions. If that is torture then count me a torturer. Also "abuse" of a bunch of bound papers and smearing with ink are not torture. If you're talking electrodes, bamboo shoots etc, then it is already highly illegal, period.

The lefties/MSM/jihad-lovers first defined torture down to include things that go on on every episode of "Law & Order" and now they are mau-mauing us into banning anything even likely to hurt the terrorists' feelings. This is lawfare at it's finest and we are losing.

On the idea that "people will CONFESS to anything to make the torture stop" - well, that's probably true, but it's besides the point. We aren't trying to get these guys to confess so that we can send them to jail - we're trying to get the locations of safe houses and weapons. If I am trying to extract the locations of KSM's mistress, and the guy lies to me, well, he knows he's going to catch it later - when you're extracting verifiable info, its a whole different game than just trying to get some mug to say "I did it".

Mark's and other ticking bomb scenarios fail to take into account that the prisoner can lie. This is, I think, usually the case in torture, look at all the women who testified that they flew on broomsticks, cavorted with the devil and turned people into salamanders because they were being tortured.

My person moral limit on prisoner abuse (a less inflammatory word than torture) is what would you do to an innocent person? That is, it's abuse if it would be wrong if the person turned out to be innocent/ignorant of the info you want.

Do the Chicago Bears or (pick your team) publish their playbook on the net? No, because it makes the other sides job easier.

Passing this legislation did exactly that for the Jihadists. They are no doubt running training classes built around the TM as we speak.

Congratulations to that bunch of poseurs known as the US Senate.

My person moral limit on prisoner abuse (a less inflammatory word than torture) is what would you do to an innocent person? That is, it's abuse if it would be wrong if the person turned out to be innocent/ignorant of the info you want.

I'm not sure I understand. Certainly mere imprisonment of an innocent person is wrong in some sense.

Taking torture completely off the board is liking taking away capital punishment.

You give the most dispicable people in the world no incentive to help save more lives or achieve justice.

No reasonable person wants to use torture but if I have to get as much information as I can from someone I sure would like them to have the FEAR that pain could ensue.

Ever deal with a bully? They enjoy inflicting pain but HATE getting it. I'd bet more than a few terrorists types fall into this psychological category. Take torture off the board, with no qualifications, in a war against pathological murderers and you are condemning dozens of innocent people to death and injury.

And the morality in that outcome is?????

And of course what it's probably going to turn into is a situation where enemy body counts are going to mysteriously go up while the number of prisoners we take is going to just as mysteriously drop to nothing.

On second thought...suits me.

:peter

Like others have pointed out, what precisely constitutes "torture"? My uncle Paul was a POW for 30 months during the Korean War. McCain was a POW for several years during the Vietnam War. Both men endured torture, both mental and physical, in the truest sense of the word.

Does putting women's underwear on someone's head constitute torture? How about smearing then with fake menstral blood? If so, then they must be incredible wusses. True torture like my uncle and other POWs endured is already outlawed. Meerly making someone uncomfortable isn't or just about every Drill Instructor and college frat would be in jail.

Oh, torture often does work as McCain admitted in his own book. Under extreme duress, he admits to giving up some classified information. Some people have been known to endure long term torture and not give up anything important, but that seems more the exception than the rule. After the Korean War, where some POWs went so far as to switch sides, the military came up with the Code of Conduct for how to behave if captured. After Vietnam, they realized that just about everyone will break eventually, so soldiers are taught to hold out to the greatest extent possible.

"Mark's and other ticking bomb scenarios fail to take into account that the prisoner can lie. This is, I think, usually the case in torture, look at all the women who testified that they flew on broomsticks, cavorted with the devil and turned people into salamanders because they were being tortured."

This is why you cross-check what you already know and what he says...Torture's been used for thousands of years, it works.

The proper edge on the access to legal representation is that the lawyers should be required to do it "pro bono"

Mark, let's get out of absurd manufactured hypotheticals. You have no way of knowing if this guy has info you want. You can only imagine that they do.

Secondly, you aren't trained in how to interrogate prisoners and you most likely will fail to get anything out of this prisoner even if he had the info.

Using torture in a legal way might conceivably be discussed rationally, even if the conclusion is clear that torture is wrong. But if torture ever is made legal, I guarantee you that some goof ball squad leader, or goof ball battalion commander is precisely the target intended to forbid torture.

Speaking as a Marine who just left a combat environment, I guarantee you that even were it allowed, an infantry unit is the last group that should have that authority.

Even without using extra legal means, there is a reason why we have experts doing interrogations.

Besides, I want the enemy to be willing to surrender and a reputation for torturing people makes them fight harder to avoid capture. If they don't surrender they die. If they do surrender, they're safe. It's a good equation for the infantry.

Besides, despite the claim by Cutler, torture has been used for thousands of years and has proven unreliable and of generally dubious results.

I can't believe Americans actually consider torture in the realm of permissable behavior.

TO: All
RE: Hey!

When was the last time you watched Patriot Games?

What did YOU think when Ryan knee-capped the PIRA plant on the royal's staff?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

I think your caveat to the time bomb scenario shows just how empty an act this law really is.

We already do our utmost to protect the rights of all people captured on the battlefield. (You do realize that by the tenants of the Geneva Convention it is legal to summarily execute illegal combatants?) So, it's already illegal to torture captives. Now we've got another law saying it's illegal to torture them and we really mean it this time.

BUT, and here's the big point. If we REALLY need the information then we'll find some way to forgive you after the fact.

So then, what the heck is the purpose of passing this law in the first place?

...probably not a DA who would indict our torturer...
Ronnie Earle. I rest my case.
neo: Any lawyer who agrees to work pro bono should be excluded from participation as an obvious witting fellow traveler with Terror Inc.

"What did YOU think when Ryan knee-capped the PIRA plant on the royal's staff?"

It's funny because it's TRUE?

But allowing prisoners of war, or enemy combatants access to our court system is absurd.

I concur.

Forbidding clearly defined acts of torture, I have no problem with- and that goes for the CIA *and* the various people in uniforms.

But allowing foreign nationals captured on a battlefield access to our national courts is idiotic lunacy.

Please, W, break out the Veto for this one. It's time.

Idea: if the Senators want terrorists sentenced to more than 10 years, or death, to have an appeal, let the Senate vote on if the sentence is appropriate in each case.

It's time those gasbags started making some hard decisions and being held accountable for them.

Maybe we should take pictures of the Senate with panties on their heads...as soon as they take them off their waists.

I guess what we'll need to arrive at is a REAL WAR...like NY or LA getting vaporized. Only then withh they take this whole mess seriously.

If they clearly defined torture (as opposed to "making them uncomfortable is ABUSE!!!!"), I'd have no problem with that portion.

But I don't give a damn what the torture portion says, I do NOT want fricking terrorists having access to our courts and the ACLU's lawyers after a fair military tribunal has rendered the verdict.

And don't even get me started on the "enemy combatants" thing: If they're in gitmo, they were 99.999% likely to have been captured ON THE FREAKING FIELD OF BATTLE.

Thus, by DEFINITION, they are Enemy Combatants. And since they are neither signatory to, nor likely following the rules of, the Geneva Conventions, that makes them UNLAWFUL combatants.

...It seems silly to trust the CIA - which hardly ever gets anything right - with something as morally repugnant as torture, especially given its questionable utility....

While I'll agree that the CIA has had more than their share of intelligence failures in the GWOT, if there is one agency which has less credibility on our "torture" policies than the CIA, it is the U.S. Senate.

I'm not in the least bit troubled by anything thus far labeled as "torture". Waterboarding, panties-on-the-head, no-access-to-lawyers--whatever.

'If it somehow did, then there's probably not a DA who would indict our torturer, and there's certainly no jury that would convict.'

Bullshit. That's lunacy. It's just like the liquor store owner shooting the hold up guy.

It's also worth noting that torture is already illegal. (Giving prisoners to other countries, who then might torture them, is not.) For this to make any sense, it has to be about defining certain things not considered torture by the current law and Administration as torture and hence impermissible.

The problem is that most people will actually follow the law. When we got Khalid Sheik Mohammad, I think we should take some pretty extreme methods with him to try to find out if he knows where Osama is or if the Sears Tower will be blown up tomorrow.

So, if you define torture broadly enough, given the lawabiding nature of our citizens, Khalid gets the kid gloves treatment and we put the country at risk.

I'm not saying torture is OK, but let's not act like (i) there is no use for VERY tough measures with terrorists or (ii) we can make laws and say they don't matter because we don't expect them to be followed.

Against which foes has America had the need to employ torture in the past? Against the British in an uphill battle for independence? Against the Barbary Corsairs in a multi-decade battle against piracy on the high-seas? Against the world-spanning German, Italian, and Japanese Axis powers during WWII? Against the, again world-spanning, Communist empire which we battled for more than a generation? None. We had the strength and the resolve to fight those wars to their conclusions without the need for torture.

And now people are telling me that we are so unmanned by Islamic terrorism that we must employ some losing tactic to protect against some imagined threat? That's what it is, a losing tactic, a tactic that is employed by losers. Look at the very hypothetical scenario employed for justification, a smuggled nuke that a captured terrorist has knowledge, the use of torture in that scenario is defensive and desperate. The precise signal of a losing tactic.

I for one am not so keen on selling the founding ideals of our republic down the river in order to gain some hypothetical tactical advantage. America fights wars strategically. America didn't win WWII by bringing up a generation of hostile teenagers through Roosevelt-youth camps that would then go on to become tenacious soldiers. America won WWII on the home front. Through better industry, better training, and better strategy. It won by building logistics trains that wrapped around the globe.

The British burned the White House (which became white because we had to paint over the burn marks). The Japanese destroyed much of our naval fleet. The Soviets had an arsenal of tens of thousands of nuclear warheads that could hit our cities in a matter of minutes. And yet we defeated those foes utterly. And now I am supposed to believe that Islamic terrorism is such a new and greater threat than any we have faced that we must destroy ourselves preemptively to stave off utter disaster?

No thank you. America is better, and stronger, than that.

Against which foes has America had the need to employ torture in the past?

The definition on the table includes "degrading treatment" and applies an eighth amendment standard that has in the past been used to demand access to cable television. By that yardstick, the answer to your question is: "all of them."

I don't think we should torture the terrorists at all. We're very unlikely to get any useful information, and it gives us very bad press. In other words, a lose-lose situation. The idea of putting these folks into the U.S. court system is insane, though. They are not criminals; they are enemy soldiers.

The whole point of agreements such as the Geneva convention[s] is to protect our own troops. If Osama [or equivalent] comes forth and suggests a similar agreement, we should consider it. Until then, we should probably do with the terrorists something similar to what they would do to our captured soldiers...don't torture them, just shoot them and move on.

I was watching a program on Auschwitz the other day.
After the war, the camp commander (Hoess) hid, disguising himself as a sailor, then as a farm labourer.

His wife turned him in when the Allies threatened to send her son to Russia.

When Hoess was seized, they beat him until he admitted his name was Hoess.

Who would say these steps were beyond the pale?

I can personally confirm that BCT at Ft Dix in the mid 70's constituted "torture" as defined by some of these moonbats.

Stuff nominally designated as "food", sleep deprivation, forced marches, forced exposure to CS gas, filthy clothing, unusal punishments (I raked a forest for 8 hours one day), etc.

A stretch in Gitmo, as its been described, would have sounded like a vacation to us.

Time for a thought experiment:

The government has detained you and is absolutely convinced that despite your clever cover as an internet hawk, that you actually have valuable information concerning an imminent terror attack. You tell them the absolute truth (you know nothing! nothing! offer them full cooperation in figuring out why they've made this mistake and they don't believe you and think they have to get the information ... soon.

What do you want them to be able to do to you?

Time for a counterexperiement:

Khalid Sheik Mohammad has just been captured. At the time, he's one of the highest-ranked members of Al-Queda. The capture was timed so that his associates don't yet know he's been caught.

You are the American interrogator, brought in just as he is hustled from his hideaway. You have sworn an oath to defend your country and her citizens.

It's quite reasonable to assume not only that that he knows if there are any immediate plans for terror attacks, but more importantly, he knows where some more of the leadership/infrastructure is - leadership that has been and/or will be used to kill Americans in the future. It's also certain that if you don't find out now, they will dissappear once they learn of KSM's fate. The clock is ticking.

Do you:
A: Employ uncomfortable methods short of ACTUAL tortue to try and capture as many of these people before they execute another 9/11?
B: Let the pakistanis use their own methods to get the info?
C: Ask KSM nicely where his buddies are hiding and expect it to work? Maybe add 'pretty please with sugar on top'?
D: When KSM says 'no', call a halt to the interrogation, send him to gitmo, and hope that the info eventually comes out months after it could have been useful?
E: Blame Bush for getting you into a quagmire.

I think I know which choices Michael Farris favors. I just hope that if he ever gets any kind of political power to act on his ideological fantasies, that you, gentle reader, make sure your children don't work in a skyscraper, monument, government building, power reactor, dam, or anywhere near the above.

Because scum like him will never take an oath to defend your lives seriously.

Oh, and note that nice little rhetorical trick Ferris uses. He did not, and apparently feels no reason to, provide any reason why the potential torturers might think that you have that info.

Which is only a reasonable assumption if you BY DEFINITION assume that the U.S. goes around picking people up and torturing them for no apparent reason. THAT is the kind of twisted, sick mind that you have to have to take him seriously.

Mr. Waxx, in the scenario you describe (the basic ticking bomb) I don't know what I'd do, a lot would depend on the particulars of the situation and the resources I have at my disposal and sense of urgency.
I don't rule out that I might use methods that could be treated as either abuse or torture.
But in that case I would not expect to be free from the legal consequences of that and would be prepared to pay them with no griping.
Saying abuse or torture might be okay in some situations because you can't think of anything better and you're afraid something worse might happen if you don't is not the same thing as saying something is inherently acceptable.

As for your second comment, governments (especially in the form of their human representatives) make mistakes. I didn't say that such an event is likely, just possible and you're reading more into my comment than I wrote.

I've answered your question with some degree of courtesy so I'll ask you a second time to answer mine. In the very unlikely event (mistaken identity, computer foul up, wrong address some horrible combination of all those) that I described, what do you want your government to be able to do to you?

McCain is four-square against torture?

What a courageous position!

Does he have any thoughts on ice cream?