Churchgoers more likely to back torture

[jecapaga]

"White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified -- more than six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did."

This doesn't surprise me in the least. White evangelical protestants seem to believe in it the most..no shocker there.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html

[PcBgone]

Let the religion bashing begin!

[Thomas Veil]

Okay, lemme get this straight:

Jesus: man of peace...

His enemies: practitioners of crowning with thorns, scourging at pillars, and crucifixion.

And these evangelicals think they're they're followers of Jesus...........

[brain explodes from irony overload]

[Chundles]

I've known that for ages.

The bloody pews they make you sit in just get you warmed up to the idea.

Glad I stopped that nonsense years ago. I love spending my Sundays in bed or at the beach sipping a coffee and watching the ocean. Much nicer than bolt upright singing dirges to imaginary people.

[djellison]

Cue the apologist religious types saying "Well - these people are not doing what God/Jesus etc wants"

Despite the fact that those same religious types have spent several days telling us that 'God' makes himself apparent to us as much as he wants. Thus, God is failing to make himself properly apparent to these people and is thus condoning a position that approves of torture.

Not surprising, the 'Word of God' promotes torture in many places.

[FadeToBlack]

Doesn't surprise me at all.

[stevento]

I'm a churchgoer. I don't back torture at all.

[yg17]

I'm a churchgoer. I don't back torture at all.

What's your point? 6 in 10 churchgoers support torture. You're one of the 4 in 10 that doesn't. Congratulations. But the point is, a majority of churchgoers (you know, the ones that are supposed to follow the bible and love thy neighbor and all that crap) do support it and are hypocrites.

[freeny]

I've known that for ages.

The bloody pews they make you sit in just get you warmed up to the idea.

Glad I stopped that nonsense years ago. I love spending my Sundays in bed or at the beach sipping a coffee and watching the ocean. Much nicer than bolt upright singing dirges to imaginary people.

+1
this sunday morning i plan on building sandcastles on the beach with my 6yo boy. I may even take your advice and bring a sippy of coffee :)

If that sends me to hell then so be it.

[imac/cheese]

This is truly disgraceful and unfortunately not much of a surprise. :(

[leekohler]

This is truly disgraceful and unfortunately not much of a surprise. :(

Somewhat surprising. I'm surprised it was only 6 in 10. I would have expected 8 in 10.

Let the religion bashing begin!

Instead of posting useless words, why don't you explain why this is so?

[mactastic]

Let the religion bashing begin!
Let the persecution complex begin!

[miloblithe]

This should be cross referenced with the thread arguing that without a belief in god there can be no basis for morality.

[adrianblaine]

Somewhat surprising. I'm surprised it was only 6 in 10. I would have expected 8 in 10.


I'm actually a little surprised it is that high. It could be that my affiliations are with a different group of people that do not believe torture is justified in any situation.

The 60% who think it's ok would be the same 60% of religious people who wanted Jesus dead in the first place...

[leekohler]

This should be cross referenced with the thread arguing that without a belief in god there can be no basis for morality.

Zing! That stings. :)

[xUKHCx]

The saddest statistic in that bunch is that only 25% of the population said that torture should never be used leaving a whipping 75% giving some justification to torture.

[mactastic]

The saddest statistic in that bunch is that only 25% of the population said that torture should never be used leaving a whipping 75% giving some justification to torture.
I suspect that has a good deal to do with how the question is asked. In this case it was "Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?", which presupposes that torture will provide important information.

If you asked "Do you think the use of torture against prisoners in an attempt to extract information of uncertain quality can often be considered legal, sometimes be considered legal, rarely be considered legal, or never be considered legal?", I suspect the numbers would shift more than just a little.

[suburbia]

Somewhat surprising. I'm surprised it was only 6 in 10. I would have expected 8 in 10.

Exactly what I was thinking! Evangelists are really scary types.

[Zombie Acorn]

Im an non-believer and I think its perfectly fine to extract information from terrorists to save American lives as long as they are known terrorists, refuse to give information when lesser techniques are used, and the techniques used are below the line which I would consider torture.

[mactastic]

Exactly what I was thinking! Evangelists are really scary types.
Not all of them.

[leekohler]

Not all of them.

But apparently too many of them.

[mactastic]

Im an non-believer and I think its perfectly fine to extract information from terrorists to save American lives as long as they are known terrorists, refuse to give information when lesser techniques are used, and the techniques used are below the line which I would consider torture.
IOW, you would torture. You might as well just come out and say it.

Sure, you wouldn't flay people alive, or set fire to genitalia, or cut off limbs with no anesthesia, but you'd employ other recognized forms of torture.

[yojitani]

It's a shame that this isn't a surprise.

[macbookairman]

I don't support torture, but if you look at the bottom of the article it said this:

The religious group most likely to say torture is never justified was Protestant denominations -- such as Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians -- categorized as "mainline" Protestants, in contrast to evangelicals. Just over three in 10 of them said torture is never justified. A quarter of the religiously unaffiliated said the same, compared with two in 10 white non-Hispanic Catholics and one in eight evangelicals.

I'm a lutheran...so I guess I kinda fit in with the stats.

[mactastic]

But apparently too many of them.
Sure, but let's not get too broad of a brush out here.

And like I said, I suspect this question skews support to the high end. If you've got someone in front of you that you know has the key to the ticking time bomb, would you torture them if the torture guaranteed you the answer? That's basically what this question was asking. Hell, in that situation I probably would do it, and then take my chances with a sympathetic jury.

But that's the rub with torture: A. You're not likely to ever have the situation arise, B. If it does, there is almost no chance that a jury would convict you, and C. Even if you did wind up in jail over it, it would have been worth it. Plus you'd be a hero.

[Zombie Acorn]

IOW, you would torture. You might as well just come out and say it.

Sure, you wouldn't flay people alive, or set fire to genitalia, or cut off limbs with no anesthesia, but you'd employ other recognized forms of torture.

If you are implying that I would drown, but never really endanger their life (only make them think I would kill them) to extract information then I agree. I don't consider that torture in the traditional sense, more psychological terror.

[obeygiant]

If you've ever sat in church before, it obvious why they don't mind a little torture.

[mactastic]

If you are implying that I would drown, but never really endanger their life (only make them think I would kill them) to extract information then I agree. I don't consider that torture in the traditional sense, more psychological terror.
Perhaps we should let individuals decide where the line between a sales pitch and extortion is? How about letting individuals decide where the line between consensual sex and rape is? How about letting individuals decide where the line between borrowing and stealing is? You see the problem here, right?

Thus the reason for LAWS. As much as conservatives hate it, the Geneva Convention *is* US law, per the -- say it with me -- Constitution of the United States of America. And waterboarding is a violation of the Geneva Convention; and a violation we have executed enemies for conducting on Americans in the past. And not just the people who ordered waterboarding. The folks who were "just following orders".

Besides, if you've already given away the fact that their life will never actually be in danger, what good is the technique? :confused:

[obeygiant]

Besides, if you've already given away the fact that their life will never actually be in danger, what good is the technique? :confused:

Isn't that the definition of all torture. If it just killed you what's the point.
Extracting hidden information through pain induction.

[imac/cheese]

This survey seems a little lacking. They only surveyed 336 people who attended church at least once a week. They mentioned Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Catholics, and Evangelicals. That leaves only 67.2 people per faith group or 112 people per faith group if you combine the "mainline" protestants. Is that really enough of a sample to draw a conclusion from?

The results of the survey are not surprising to me and I am not doubting the fact that a lot of christians do support torture.

I also found it interesting that the survey was conducted two days after easter.

[Zombie Acorn]

Perhaps we should let individuals decide where the line between a sales pitch and extortion is? How about letting individuals decide where the line between consensual sex and rape is? How about letting individuals decide where the line between borrowing and stealing is? You see the problem here, right?

Thus the reason for LAWS. As much as conservatives hate it, the Geneva Convention *is* US law, per the -- say it with me -- Constitution of the United States of America. And waterboarding is a violation of the Geneva Convention; and a violation we have executed enemies for conducting on Americans in the past. And not just the people who ordered waterboarding. The folks who were "just following orders".

Besides, if you've already given away the fact that their life will never actually be in danger, what good is the technique? :confused:

Any terrorist who is high priority and holding information knows that they won't be killed by the US, they should know the US would never kill them anyways. That is why we had to use these advanced interrogation techniques because they are psychologically terrifying to the point that they will give up information instead of saying "soon you will know" or whatever that terrorist said after traditional interrogation techniques were tried.

Geneva convention:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

I have not personally read the Geneva convention so I do not know if waterboarding is specifically outlined in the treaty, but if it is not then it would be up to interpretation.

[imac/cheese]

Any terrorist who is high priority and holding information knows that they won't be killed by the US, they should know the US would never kill them anyways. That is why we had to use these advanced interrogation techniques because they are psychologically terrifying to the point that they will give up information instead of saying "soon you will know" or whatever that terrorist said after traditional interrogation techniques were tried.

Geneva convention:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

I have not personally read the Geneva convention so I do not know if waterboarding is specifically outlined in the treaty, but if it is not then it would be up to interpretation.

How could waterboarding not be considered cruel treatment?

[Zombie Acorn]

How could waterboarding not be considered cruel treatment?

Most of these terrorists would probably consider being taken off of the battlegrounds as cruel treatment.

[mactastic]

Isn't that the definition of all torture. If it just killed you what's the point.
Extracting hidden information through pain induction.
To some extent, yes. But the fear that you won't live through the experience must be there also, or you'll have a much stronger resolve to resist the pain.

Sure, waterboard someone. While you're pouring water up his nose, he "breaks" and says he'll tell you anything you want. So you bring him upright, and he spits in your face and tells you to go Suck. On. This. So what do you do? Waterboard him again? Waterboard him 183 times? What happens if he does the same thing every time? Where do you go from there?

If the guy you've got strapped to the board knows his life isn't in any real danger, where's the incentive to actually talk? I mean, according to most conservatives around here, waterboarding is no big deal pain-wise, right? So it's a minimal amount of pain, and with the threat of death removed from the equation, there's little fear either. Would you betray your nation under those circumstances?

[imac/cheese]

Most of these terrorists would probably consider being taken off of the battlegrounds as cruel treatment.

So what is up for interpretation?

[Zombie Acorn]

So what is up for interpretation?

Unless its specifically outlined in the Geneva convention I suppose everything is.

[imac/cheese]

Unless its specifically outlined in the Geneva convention I suppose everything is.

So do you interpret waterboarding as non-cruel treatment?

[Zombie Acorn]

So do you interpret waterboarding as non-cruel treatment?

Personally I would consider it just treatment under the circumstances. We lock people in jail cells in our own country, if we followed the "non-cruel" policy that would be considered a violation too. Personally i don't feel too bad about making people uncomfortable for breaking the law.

[mactastic]

This survey seems a little lacking. They only surveyed 336 people who attended church at least once a week. They mentioned Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Catholics, and Evangelicals. That leaves only 67.2 people per faith group or 112 people per faith group if you combine the "mainline" protestants. Is that really enough of a sample to draw a conclusion from?
That all depends on how representative your sample group is, as all polling does. Pew Research Group tends to be the gold standard for polling operations, so I would be surprised if they didn't carefully consider the makeup of the sample.

And sample sizes of less than 1,000 people are fairly common.

The results of the survey are not surprising to me and I am not doubting the fact that a lot of christians do support torture.

I also found it interesting that the survey was conducted two days after easter.
LOL... good catch about being right after Easter. I wonder if that actually holds the numbers down, as I would imagine Christians would be someone focused on the torture the "terrorist" Christ endured in his final hours.

Any terrorist who is high priority and holding information knows that they won't be killed by the US, they should know the US would never kill them anyways. That is why we had to use these advanced interrogation techniques because they are psychologically terrifying to the point that they will give up information instead of saying "soon you will know" or whatever that terrorist said after traditional interrogation techniques were tried.
Or, more likely, they make up some phony crap to get the pain to stop.

Geneva convention:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

I have not personally read the Geneva convention so I do not know if waterboarding is specifically outlined in the treaty, but if it is not then it would be up to interpretation.
Waterboarding is internationally considered torture. It was considered torture in the US up until 2001, and was only reclassified as something other than torture under highly questionable legal rationales that have never been tested in open court.

How could waterboarding not be considered cruel treatment?
Agreed.

Most of these terrorists would probably consider being taken off of the battlegrounds as cruel treatment.
Got any proof of this, or is this just more idle speculation on a subject you know nothing about?

[imac/cheese]

That all depends on how representative your sample group is, as all polling does. Pew Research Group tends to be the gold standard for polling operations, so I would be surprised if they didn't carefully consider the makeup of the sample.

And sample sizes of less than 1,000 people are fairly common.

That is good to know. I would be interested to see what their sample group included.

[mactastic]

Personally I would consider it just treatment under the circumstances. We lock people in jail cells in our own country, if we followed the "non-cruel" policy that would be considered a violation too. Personally i don't feel too bad about making people uncomfortable for breaking the law.
If you don't see any difference between drowning someone not quite to death, and incarceration, we've got very little to discuss. This is, quite simply, a ridiculous argument. I'm actually surprised that you are willing to do so.

[leekohler]

If you don't see any difference between drowning someone not quite to death, and incarceration, we've got very little to discuss. This is, quite simply, a ridiculous argument. I'm actually surprised that you are willing to do so.

And I fail to understand why you're surprised.

[mactastic]

And I fail to understand why you're surprised.
I'm not surprised that he continues to defend torture, I'm surprised that he would employ such a specious argument to do so. I mean, come on... "if waterboarding is torture, so is locking people in cells"? That's an argument? Seriously?

[leekohler]

I'm not surprised that he continues to defend torture, I'm surprised that he would employ such a specious argument to do so. I mean, come on... "if waterboarding is torture, so is locking people in cells"? That's an argument? Seriously?

I've seen similar weak arguments from this poster in other threads. I guess that's why I mentioned it.

[mactastic]

I've seen similar weak arguments from this poster in other threads. I guess that's why I mentioned it.
I dunno... this seems like a new low to me, but maybe it's a tie. Zombie seems like the kind of guy who could bring a more compelling argument to the table though.

[leekohler]

I dunno... this seems like a new low to me, but maybe it's a tie. Zombie seems like the kind of guy who could bring a more compelling argument to the table though.

Maybe it is a new low. It just didn't surprise me much.

[MacNut]

I just thought of this, if we are saying all torture is bad, what about solitary confinement in prison? Isn't that forcing a person into a dark cell with nothing for 23 hours a day?

[freeny]

I just thought of this, if we are saying all torture is bad, what about solitary confinement in prison? Isn't that forcing a person into a dark cell with nothing for 23 hours a day?

Well thats a whole other can of worms...

I believe the rule is 23 hours a day, 1 hour of exercise for up to 19 days.
correct me if im wrong... But I believe that is the law.

[dukebound85]

I just thought of this, if we are saying all torture is bad, what about solitary confinement in prison? Isn't that forcing a person into a dark cell with nothing for 23 hours a day?

thatd be torture to me

[freeny]

I could get a whole lotta' work done with that kind of alone time....

[Zombie Acorn]

Or, more likely, they make up some phony crap to get the pain to stop.

This has been proven false on at least one occasion, Obama even recognized that we received crucial information, he just thought we could get it some other way (naive, since we tried all traditional tactics beforehand and even after the waterboarding started he wouldn't talk until we ramped it up).

Waterboarding is internationally considered torture. It was considered torture in the US up until 2001, and was only reclassified as something other than torture under highly questionable legal rationales that have never been tested in open court.

Unless there is a specific definition that includes waterboarding under the Geneva convention its open to interpretation until a ruling is made. Keep in mind that US law comes before International, the only reason the Geneva convention is constitutional is because we signed the treaty.

Got any proof of this, or is this just more idle speculation on a subject you know nothing about?

Just showing how people's definitions of cruelty can vary, and so if there isn't a strict definition we have nothing to follow besides interpretation.

If you don't see any difference between drowning someone not quite to death, and incarceration, we've got very little to discuss. This is, quite simply, a ridiculous argument. I'm actually surprised that you are willing to do so.

Stay with the conversation, we are talking about a clause in the Geneva convention which doesn't permit cruelty. Not ridiculous at all and just shows how much interpretation plays into the debate, people deem different things cruel, and so you must specifically lay out a definition of it.

[takao]

Unless there is a specific definition that includes waterboarding under the Geneva convention its open to interpretation until a ruling is made. Keep in mind that US law comes before International, the only reason the Geneva convention is constitutional is because we signed the treaty.

Stay with the conversation, we are talking about a clause in the Geneva convention which doesn't permit cruelty. Not ridiculous at all and just shows how much interpretation plays into the debate, people deem different things cruel, and so you must specifically lay out a definition of it.

since you obviously don't know what you are talking about:
the US already signed the "UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" in 1988 and ratified it in 1994

in which obviously a definition is included:
For the purposes of this Convention, 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.

and then in article 2:

Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

etc. etc.

that the US is vice chairman on the defined committee against torture makes it even more ridiculous that we are even discussing it here ... the people who did the waterboarding torture and those who ordered them should be sitting in prison already

even more so for each time the US talked about torture chambers before the iraq invasion

[djellison]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58

It's torture. It's banned under the Geneva Convention.

The US, I think, avoided breaching the convention via a loop hole of who the convention applies to. i.e. If you're not at war with someone, then you're not taking prisoners of war for whom the GC is applicable. By having a war on 'terror' and ' detaining enemy combatants' rather than prisoners of war - the US was giving itself a carte blanche to do what it wants.

[MacNut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58

It's torture. It's banned under the Geneva Convention.

The US, I think, avoided breaching the convention via a loop hole of who the convention applies to. i.e. If you're not at war with someone, then you're not taking prisoners of war for whom the GC is applicable. By having a war on 'terror' and ' detaining enemy combatants' rather than prisoners of war - the US was giving itself a carte blanche to do what it wants.That is were it gets sticky. The war on terror is not a true war with a country so how do you regulate something that doesn't have a rule book. We never declared war against a country or government but a group of people inside that country.

[mactastic]

This has been proven false on at least one occasion, Obama even recognized that we received crucial information, he just thought we could get it some other way (naive, since we tried all traditional tactics beforehand and even after the waterboarding started he wouldn't talk until we ramped it up).
Link please.

Unless there is a specific definition that includes waterboarding under the Geneva convention its open to interpretation until a ruling is made. Keep in mind that US law comes before International, the only reason the Geneva convention is constitutional is because we signed the treaty.
Treaties that we sign *become* US law. Keep that in mind.

Just showing how people's definitions of cruelty can vary, and so if there isn't a strict definition we have nothing to follow besides interpretation.
What? You showed nothing of the kind. You asserted, again without proof, that suspected terrorists found it to be cruel to be removed from the battlefield. Not only is that statement devoid of meaning, it in no way shows that "people's definitions of cruelty can vary", as you are the only one asserting definitions of cruelty.

Stay with the conversation, we are talking about a clause in the Geneva convention which doesn't permit cruelty. Not ridiculous at all and just shows how much interpretation plays into the debate, people deem different things cruel, and so you must specifically lay out a definition of it.
Court after court has held that incarceration, both pre-and post-trial, is well within the bounds of the Constitution. Conversely, court after court has held that waterboarding is torture. The two are not remotely similar. Is that "with the conversation" enough for you?

[freeny]

Link please.
I believe he is referring to this-
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/30/obama-torture-not-worth-trade-off/

[mactastic]

I believe he is referring to this-
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/30/obama-torture-not-worth-trade-off/
That's what I thought he meant. But all we know about that so far is that Cheney and Obama have said something was gained by torture. So far we have no idea who this person was, or what information was obtained, let alone whether the information in question was, as Zombie has claimed, "crucial". All we know so far is that someone said something more under torture than they did under interrogation.

Unless Zombie has seen this memo, I don't know how he could make the assertion that the information obtained under torture was "crucial", or even truthful. And until that information is made public, I think we all need to refrain from making assumptions based on what either Cheney or Obama have said.

There have been a lot of assertions about the torture program that have proven false later. We've only recently found out that Zubayda didn't break after 30 seconds of waterboarding, as we had been led to believe. The man was waterboarded over 80 times, something not necessary if he'd been broken the first time -- unless we were simply torturing him to be sadistic, hardly a better explanation.

So you'll have to excuse me if I'm a little skeptical about these early and unconfirmed reports that torture worked.

[toontra]

On the broader point, it's no surprise that a religion which sees things (and people) as good and evil, black and white, chosen and damned, will promote followers who are more likely to condone torture for the "bad" folks, the implication being that these are likely damned souls anyway, so why not bring the retribution forward a bit!

[CalBoy]

This has been proven false on at least one occasion, Obama even recognized that we received crucial information, he just thought we could get it some other way (naive, since we tried all traditional tactics beforehand and even after the waterboarding started he wouldn't talk until we ramped it up).

Whether or not we receive good intel from torture is irrelevant. The ends do not justify the means. If that was the case, we might be tempted to declare that the government should seize and redistribute all property in existence, since that would be quite effective in eliminating poverty and inequality.

However, I doubt that you would hold up such a solution, even if it was extremely effective. And yet, the principle when applied to essential human rights seems lost.


Keep in mind that US law comes before International, the only reason the Geneva convention is constitutional is because we signed the treaty.

That is blatantly false. As per Missouri v Holland (1920), treaties trump amorphous claims of the Federal government's limitation of powers. Moreover, US law doesn't condone torture either, as the 5th and 8th Amendments clearly were violated with water boarding. No attorney worth half his law degree would allow his client to be "interrogated" in that manner, and no self-respecting person would dare make the claim that simulating death isn't cruel.

If you want to make the claim that these were armed combatants for which the Bill of Rights doesn't apply, then you must apply the Geneva Convention, as it is our de facto and de jure set of standards for the capture of non-American belligerents. The President does not have the power to change this treaty or its extent whenever he wants; that power is vested only in the Senate if it were to ratify a new treaty or repeal the existing treaty by the same 2/3 majority required to pass one.

That is were it gets sticky. The war on terror is not a true war with a country so how do you regulate something that doesn't have a rule book. We never declared war against a country or government but a group of people inside that country.

True, but we have to make up our minds as to who we're fighting. Before 9/11, terrorists were largely a domestic concern and we could apply the same rules we apply to any other murderer or aggressor. If that's what we're calling Bin Laden and his ilk, then we should play by those rules.

If we're not calling them that, we need to treat them like any other foreign enemy. That means we treat them with the same rules that the world agreed to before this whole thing started. We don't get to make exceptions after the fact just because it makes it easier for us to sink to their level.

[takao]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58

It's torture. It's banned under the Geneva Convention.

The US, I think, avoided breaching the convention via a loop hole of who the convention applies to. i.e. If you're not at war with someone, then you're not taking prisoners of war for whom the GC is applicable. By having a war on 'terror' and ' detaining enemy combatants' rather than prisoners of war - the US was giving itself a carte blanche to do what it wants.

That is were it gets sticky. The war on terror is not a true war with a country so how do you regulate something that doesn't have a rule book. We never declared war against a country or government but a group of people inside that country.

If you want to make the claim that these were armed combatants for which the Bill of Rights doesn't apply, then you must apply the Geneva Convention, as it is our de facto and de jure set of standards for the capture of non-American belligerents. The President does not have the power to change this treaty or its extent whenever he wants; that power is vested only in the Senate if it were to ratify a new treaty or repeal the existing treaty by the same 2/3 majority required to pass one.

and yet again: it doesn't matter if the geneva convention applies or not/ enemy combatant or not, if you seperatly banned torture under an other defined international treaty

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

stop bringing the geneva convention up... because even if it doesn't apply the convention against torture forbids doing it



on another point that even now under a new government under Obama the torturer aren't put up before a court is a disgrace to standards the US likes to set on other countries

[remmy]

On the broader point, it's no surprise that a religion which sees things (and people) as good and evil, black and white, chosen and damned, will promote followers who are more likely to condone torture for the "bad" folks, the implication being that these are likely damned souls anyway, so why not bring the retribution forward a bit!

I do agree, and no different from extremist Muslims and terrorists.

[toontra]

I do agree, and no different from extremist Muslims and terrorists.

Indeed.

[CalBoy]

and yet again: it doesn't matter if the geneva convention applies or not/ enemy combatant or not, if you seperatly banned torture under an other defined international treaty

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

stop bringing the geneva convention up... because even if it doesn't apply the convention against torture forbids doing it

The problem is, I can't find any record of the US Senate having ratified that UN Convention. I went through the Senate records of the 103rd Congress, and this treaty is not on the agenda, no roll call record exists, etc.

Moreover, we're not exactly sure the extent to which a UN treaty applies to domestic US law because UN treaties are generally more vague and only have general guidelines.

We also run into problems because the treaty seems to have little to say about how we deal with those who discharge their duties as officers, and seems to seek to limit torture as an act carried out by rogues or other extra-legal bodies. It asks governments to have legal safeguards against torture, including extradition treaties, which the US does have with most nations. The problem here is that the torture was government-sanctioned. How does one extradite an entire government?

The Geneva Convention is far more explicit, and it was very clearly ratified by the Senate, so it is standing law. A secondary or tertiary treaty to enhance that position is icing on the cake, not the cake itself.

[Iscariot]

The difference between churchgoers and persons unaffiliated with any religious organization is not nearly sufficient enough to be casting stones; both numbers are appalling.

[mactastic]

The difference between churchgoers and persons unaffiliated with any religious organization is not nearly sufficient enough to be casting stones; both numbers are appalling.
Which is why I disagree with the wording of the poll question...

[MikeTheC]

I back a sensible and realistic view of the situation, which sadly is lacking in this thread and elsewhere on this board.

The U.S. has enemies, and it has a lot of them. I don't mean in the modern twisted sense of "Oh, the U.S. is losing it's friends and allies and the world hates us and we need to stop being mean and beat all our swords into plough-shears, etc. etc. etc." but in the sense of there are and have almost always been threat forces in this world who have sought to harm us. The difference now is that the ocean is no longer the agent of separation and protection it once was. Consequentially, we (at least under Bush; under Obama this remains to be seen) have adopted the sensible view of finding enemy agents and enemy combatants and fighting them before they get on U.S. soil. Those who are worth interrogating we keep.

These are not U.S. citizens. They are not innocent civilians. They have no claim on U.S. juris prudence nor on our Due Process rules. I see no reason, given the threat being what it has been, not to extract intel from these folks by whatever effective means is necessary.

Either you share this worldview or you don't. I know I'm not going to convince anyone through force of words alone that I'm right, and equally well nobody on the other side is going to convince me they are right. The other side also believes that the more we do to protect ourselves, the more enemies we make. I say that's crap, and even if it were true, that's just more work for our military to take care of. I want to live in peace. Giving up or surrendering or imposing restraints on oneself during combat is simply not the way to achieve that.

There's basically two strategies, and you have to decide which one you agree with. The first is "peace through strength" and the second is "peace at all costs". Take a guess which one I'm going with.

[Rodimus Prime]

The difference between churchgoers and persons unaffiliated with any religious organization is not nearly sufficient enough to be casting stones; both numbers are appalling.

so basically we have yet another example of how little the media cares about the truth. They only care about stirring up bashing fest like the religious one we have going here.

[MikeTheC]

I do agree, and no different from extremist Muslims and terrorists.
Would there really be any point in my saying that, as a Christian, I am offended by that remark and by that comparison?

[MikeTheC]

so basically we have yet another example of how little the media cares about the truth. They only care about stirring up bashing fest like the religious one we have going here.
Sounds about right.

Same media that also, interestingly enough, fails to report that botnets and things like Conficker (sp?) are only wreaking havoc on Windows-based systems, not Mac OS X- or Linux-based ones. Interesting little lost detail, that. *sigh*

[CalBoy]

Those who are worth interrogating we keep.

I wonder what gave us that authority? It certainly was no treaty or international resolution. Or are you essentially saying that when it comes to international law, we can all operate on a Kohlberg Stage 1 level?


These are not U.S. citizens.

On the contrary, a fair number of them are. Many were also captured within the United States.


They are not innocent civilians.

Alas that is something we don't know. Many of the detainees were captured by bounty hunters in Iraq, who were simply paid by the number of captures they made. For all we know, some could in fact be fathers who went out to buy food for their families and never returned.

Of course I assume you would perfectly willing to do this if a bounty hunter declared you a suspected terrorist right?


They have no claim on U.S. juris prudence nor on our Due Process rules.

Citizenship is not required to have access to US due process protections. However, if you pay attention in this thread, we are talking about international due process rights, to which the US has long been a party. The Bush Administration violated even those basic protections. That's the issue here, if you care to respond to it.


I see no reason, given the threat being what it has been, not to extract intel from these folks by whatever effective means is necessary.

So why not go further than what we've done? Why not beat them to an inch of their lives, drug them, and then ask questions? Are you against more brutal tactics, or do you just like these particular methods because you feel the need to defend a Republican administration?

Either you share this worldview or you don't.

What an unnecessary bifurcation. Others can agree with your goals but disagree with your methods and vice versa.

[MikeTheC]

What an unnecessary bifurcation. Others can agree with your goals but disagree with your methods and vice versa.
This is the only point of your I'm going to respond to because all the others directly draw from this one. Two people cannot successfully (that is to say, usefully) argue who do not share some number of beliefs. I could sit here and defend my points until I'm blue in the face, but you're not going to accept any of the arguments I might put forth, and likely as not you're not going to accept the basis upon which any/all of them are made. So, frankly, what's the point?

I know it's trendy and popular to hate Bush. In fact, the more one "hates Bush" the more credibility and popularity they seem to have with others. Likewise, it's trendy and popular to continue to help elevate Obama to the status of rock star. It's not about me defending Bush, anyhow. It's about how I'm not a member of the "liberal club" and so naturally nothing I say has any validity to begin with.

Go ahead and write your own reality. I'll be curious to see how far you get, and I'll be here when you get back.

[NT1440]

I know it's trendy and popular to hate Bush. In fact, the more one "hates Bush" the more credibility and popularity they seem to have with others. Likewise, it's trendy and popular to continue to help elevate Obama to the status of rock star. It's not about me defending Bush, anyhow. It's about how I'm not a member of the "liberal club" and so naturally nothing I say has any validity to begin with.

Go ahead and write your own reality. I'll be curious to see how far you get, and I'll be here when you get back.

I dont get it? You sit there and talk about how we demonize bush amongst other things and label people, but then you go and make statements like the underlined.

Do you really think any of that "rock star" crap holds any merit? Face it, we voted in a new president and the people actually LIKE him, thats why hes so damn popular. WE THE PEOPLE voted for this kind of administration, to say that hes just popular because its some sort of trend is just ignoring reality.

[jecapaga]

I dont get it? You sit there and talk about how we demonize bush amongst other things and label people, but then you go and make statements like the underlined.

Do you really think any of that "rock star" crap holds any merit? Face it, we voted in a new president and the people actually LIKE him, thats why hes so damn popular. WE THE PEOPLE voted for this kind of administration, to say that hes just popular because its some sort of trend is just ignoring reality.

Well said. It's kind of a foreign concept for me to live in a time where there was a general feeling of really liking your president. Usually it's been a selection of the best of the worst. I can only go back as far as Carter.

[MacNut]

Do you really think any of that "rock star" crap holds any merit? Face it, we voted in a new president and the people actually LIKE him, thats why hes so damn popular. WE THE PEOPLE voted for this kind of administration, to say that hes just popular because its some sort of trend is just ignoring reality.That is not exactly true, half the people voted for Obama just like half the people voted for Bush. So either way you will get 50% of the people mad. Don't make it sound like it was a land slide vote for Obama.

I do think that people are going to cheer for anyone that isn't Bush. So in a way Obama is getting a pass just because he isn't Bush.

[Iscariot]

I could sit here and defend my points until I'm blue in the face, but you're not going to accept any of the arguments I might put forth, and likely as not you're not going to accept the basis upon which any/all of them are made. So, frankly, what's the point?

There are currently 12 guests browsing the forums for everyone one user logged in. Changing your mind may be a suitably impossible task, but demonstrating that you are incorrect to any viewers is not.

Additionally, if you are not interested in debate or defending your viewpoint, why are you posting them? To be contrarian? That's just an admission of trolling.

[mactastic]

I back a sensible and realistic view of the situation, which sadly is lacking in this thread and elsewhere on this board.
Or in your posts...

The U.S. has enemies, and it has a lot of them. I don't mean in the modern twisted sense of "Oh, the U.S. is losing it's friends and allies and the world hates us and we need to stop being mean and beat all our swords into plough-shears, etc. etc. etc." but in the sense of there are and have almost always been threat forces in this world who have sought to harm us. The difference now is that the ocean is no longer the agent of separation and protection it once was. Consequentially, we (at least under Bush; under Obama this remains to be seen) have adopted the sensible view of finding enemy agents and enemy combatants and fighting them before they get on U.S. soil. Those who are worth interrogating we keep.
And how do you know that we only keep the ones worth interrogating? Evidence is beginning to surface that the Bush administration held -- and tortured -- people they knew were likely innocent for no reason other than that they felt the political hit they would take for admitting they'd swept up some innocents and tortured them would be too much to bear prior to an election, and after it had become apparent that they had made a colossal cock-up of the rational for war in Iraq.

These are not U.S. citizens. They are not innocent civilians. They have no claim on U.S. juris prudence nor on our Due Process rules. I see no reason, given the threat being what it has been, not to extract intel from these folks by whatever effective means is necessary.
Would you sanction setting fire to genitalia? Running over with a car until bones break? Shoving sand down the mouth? Using a cattle prod on sensitive body parts?

And again, how do you know they are not innocents? From many accounts, there have indeed been numerous innocent individuals swept up and tortured -- some apparently in an effort to extract false confessions regarding links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Yet you appear absolutely sure that we have never taken an innocent prisoner by mistake or design.

I suppose with your worldview, admitting that such a thing was possible would be a severe blow to the black and white version of events you seem to live.

Either you share this worldview or you don't. I know I'm not going to convince anyone through force of words alone that I'm right, and equally well nobody on the other side is going to convince me they are right. The other side also believes that the more we do to protect ourselves, the more enemies we make. I say that's crap, and even if it were true, that's just more work for our military to take care of. I want to live in peace. Giving up or surrendering or imposing restraints on oneself during combat is simply not the way to achieve that.
I say your worldview is crap. And I suspect that if any other nation treated US prisoners are you advocate treating prisoners the US takes, you would fly off the handle in blind rage.

As would I of course... the only difference is that you hold a double standard -- one for them, and one for us. Why? Because we're the guys in the white hats?

There's basically two strategies, and you have to decide which one you agree with. The first is "peace through strength" and the second is "peace at all costs". Take a guess which one I'm going with.
No need to guess. You've said all that is necessary.

[NT1440]

.

I do think that people are going to cheer for anyone that isn't Bush. So in a way Obama is getting a pass just because he isn't Bush.

Yes in a way, a way that has no impact whatsoever on how the country is run.

[MacNut]

Yes in a way, a way that has no impact whatsoever on how the country is run.It will give him a longer leash. he won't be criticized quite as quickly as Bush was.

I do believe that Bush or really McCain would have been steamrolled for some of the choices that Obama has made.

[mactastic]

It will give him a longer leash. he won't be criticized quite as quickly as Bush was.

I do believe that Bush or really McCain would have been steamrolled for some of the choices that Obama has made.
Are you suggesting that no one is criticizing Obama yet? :confused:

[freeny]

Are you suggesting that no one is criticizing Obama yet? :confused:

Really :P
He was being criticized long before he even took office.

[MacNut]

With approval ratings in the 60s it doesn't look like he is getting much criticism.

[NT1440]

With approval ratings in the 60s it doesn't look like he is getting much criticism.

The PEOPLE like him, that doesnt mean they have nothing to criticize. Do you watch the news at all? Everyones got an opinion on what hes doing right and wrong.

[mactastic]

With approval ratings in the 60s it doesn't look like he is getting much criticism.
So how long was it before George W. Bush was criticized? Would that be the point at which his net job approval rating went negative? Is that the criteria you're using as the basis for your "criticism" statement? still:confused:

[MacNut]

So how long was it before George W. Bush was criticized? Would that be the point at which his net job approval rating went negative? Is that the criteria you're using as the basis for your "criticism" statement? still:confused:I don't know what big events Bush had in his First 100 days. I think it was pretty routine. I don't know the numbers of who approved of the bail out but as of now that is Obama's big first move. Approval numbers should not be based on well we like the guy, it should be on the job he is doing. The question is would McCain have had the same grace period if he made the exact same moves as Obama.

[NT1440]

I don't know what big events Bush had in his First 100 days. I think it was pretty routine. I don't know the numbers of who approved of the bail out but as of now that is Obama's big first move. Approval numbers should not be based on well we like the guy, it should be on the job he is doing. The question is would McCain have had the same grace period if he made the exact same moves as Obama.

What makes you think his approval numbers arent based upon the publics feelings on how hes doing?

[MacNut]

What makes you think his approval numbers arent based upon the publics feelings on how hes doing?Do we really know? Are the numbers inflated because he is new and they are giving him the benefit or do people really like all the bail outs?

[NT1440]

Do we really know? Are the numbers inflated because he is new and they are giving him the benefit or do people really like all the bail outs?


Careful, your bias (against the bailout) is showing.

The public likes what he is doing, they obviously feel like he is really trying to fix this mess. Just because you personally don't doesn't mean his poll numbers are based on a honeymoon period (the idea of which I think is seriously flawed, people are always outspoken against things they dont like, regardless of how long someones been in office).

[MacNut]

We are getting way off topic, maybe its for the better.:p When they poll do they just ask a blanket do you like the job he is doing, or is it broken down on key issues and then the average is taken.

[NT1440]

We are getting way off topic, maybe its for the better.:p When they poll do they just ask a blanket do you like the job he is doing, or is it broken down on key issues and then the average is taken.

Its usually "Do you approve of the job X is doing?" That simple.

[mactastic]

Approval numbers should not be based on well we like the guy, it should be on the job he is doing.
You know, there's a reason they call it the JOB approval number...

We are getting way off topic, maybe its for the better.:p When they poll do they just ask a blanket do you like the job he is doing, or is it broken down on key issues and then the average is taken.
They break it down on key issues as well as overall job performance. Currently Obama is more popular (again, job approval popular, not "I want to have a beer with the guy popular) than any of the key issues. That suggests that anything Obama lends his support to right now will see a gain in popularity. That's called political capital.

I'm still confused by your comment that people will wait longer to criticize Obama than they did with Bush. What people? All of them? Some? If it's some, which some? More than half? More than 2/3?

[solvs]

Torture doesn't work, and even if it did, it's barbaric. And against the law. Our law, international law we've signed on to, and some helped create (partially based on what was done to our own). I've made my feelings quite known, and frankly, with all of the info out there on this subject, I'm still amazed that this is even being discussed. If not for a scared few in the previous admin, and the complicit few who either went along with them or at the very least, let them get away with this at the time AND now continue to do so.

But the real problem is the lack of legitimate discourse on the subject. We act as if there are 2 equal sides. As if there's justifiable reason to torture (and waterboarding, especially the way we did it, IS torture... on that there is NO question). There aren't and there isn't. But people are out there convincing the public that it's ok in some cases. They're scaring them into making it seem tolerable, even a good thing. And those who know better are letting them. I see a few people who argue against it, but far too many defend it, and far too many with a public voice let them.

Add this to the amount of people who claim to be religious, when some of them don't seem to know much about their own religion (as we've seen many times here), who are simply using religion to justify their hatred of the "other" (as some do with gays, immigrants, and still do with other minorities) and the numbers are lower than I'd expect, but higher than should be.

The "Beautiful Kidnapper" and Other Simple Responses to Torture Arguments (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-beautiful-kidnapper-a_b_191740.html)
Our Obligation to Investigate (Sen. Robert Byrd) (http://blog.thehill.com/2009/04/30/our-obligation-to-investigate/)
America’s Willing Torturers (http://www.dontknowmuch.com/2009/05/americas-willing-torturers/)
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Five Things You Should Know About the ‘Torture’ Memos (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/21/napolitano_torture_memos/) (Yes, even FOX!)

I could post some Bible quotes too, but as usual, those who need to read them most won't.

[solvs]

Two people cannot successfully (that is to say, usefully) argue who do not share some number of beliefs. I could sit here and defend my points until I'm blue in the face, but you're not going to accept any of the arguments I might put forth, and likely as not you're not going to accept the basis upon which any/all of them are made. So, frankly, what's the point?

You know, I wasn't going to respond to this, but it was bugging me, so here goes. You can't call it a belief. Nor an opinion. Doesn't work like that with subjects like this. Or gay marriage for what it's worth, but we have other threads for that. Saying your favorite color is green is opinion. Saying you think green is a pretty color can be called belief I suppose. Saying the sky is green? Not belief, not opinion, just wrong. Torture doesn't work. It just doesn't. This has been proven, ask anyone who knows. IT. DOESN'T. WORK. Period. Exclamation point. You can believe it does all you want I suppose, but you would be wrong. Even if it did, and (say it with me now) IT DOESN'T, that doesn't make it right. No matter how hard you believe, no matter how many TV shows and movies show you the ticking time bomb, it's not only not the reality, but it's illegal and morally wrong.

We built this country on laws to get away from such things. This is what our enemies did (again, many times to get what they knew were false confessions). If it's war, there are rules. If it isn't, there are still rules. Rules we live by, that we hold EVERYONE to so we can all have them. Freedom, not just a word. We treat others the way we'd want to be treated, even if we aren't. If you don't like it, you're in the wrong country. And if you can defend it, you don't get to call yourself moral, no matter what your flawed reasoning, your anger, your fear. This country, and others, have withstood far greater threats, I don't want to have to be worrying that our greatest threat is from within when our leaders can't even follow our own God damn rules! And when I hear people like you who want to throw those rules away because you let the gov make you scared, I wonder what country I'm in if YOU'RE the patriot.

What they did was wrong. Why they did it was wrong. You are wrong. Stop believing the sky is green, because if you simply look up and apply some of that logic you claim you have, you'd see that. Unless you're colorblind, which would actually explain a lot. Go read up on it if you don't believe me.

And if you can't make your argument very well, maybe you don't have an argument to make.