Waterboard Yoo Too

[rayboyusmc]

How we lost our way in the world of laws and morality.

What takes my breath away about the Yoo memos, now that we can finally read them, is their air of uttery certainty. One after another, complex questions of constitutional law are dispatched as if there's no cause for any debate. The president has all the war-making power. Congress has none. The president's commander in chief powers extend to interrogations (no matter how far from the battlefield in space and time they take place). Guantanamo Bay detainees and enemy aliens enjoy no constitutional protections. And then the pages Jack points us to, which include "Congress can no more interfere with the President's conduct of the interrogation of enemy combatants than it can dictate strategic or tactical decisions on the battlefield." In other words, Congress cannot prohibit any sort of treatment that the president chooses to allow. No wonder Jack Goldsmith thought Yoo was reaching far beyond where he needed to go, not to mention what the state of the law would actually support. And yet he brooks no doubt. It's as if he's writing as a Supreme Court justice, not a government lawyer. Which is understandable in one sense, since the Office of Legal Counsel functions like the government's internal Supreme Court—but also exhibits the terrifying results of dishonest, glib analysis by lawyers drunk on that very power.

More tripping lightly over what should be boulders: "We conclude that the War Crimes Act does not apply to the interrogation of al Qaeda and Taliban detainees because, as illegal belligerents, they do not qualify for the legal protections under the Geneva or Hague Conventions." Also blithely concluded, the prohibition against torture "does not apply to interrogations conducted within the territorial United States or on permanent military bases outside the territory of the United States." And again, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention—the backstop shielding enemy detainees—does not cover "an international conflict with a non-governmental terrorist organization." As David Luban has taken pains to explain, that's a tendentious and discredited view of Common Article 3. Yet there's no hint of all the debate and argument roiling just beneath the surface.The effect is entirely unsober and lawyerly.

http://tinyurl.com/2vghhc

 

[Diuretic]

It seems to me that Yoo's argument is supporting dictatorship. Didn't you blokes fight the British because of their tyranny?

 

[Steerpike]

How we lost our way in the world of laws and morality.

The Administration is using legal technicalities to support immoral practices. It's true, for example, that the combatants like al-qaeda aren't under the umbrella of the Geneva Convention. But you can't just look at that and decide it is ok to do whatever we want. You still have to consider right and wrong.

 

[Swamp Fox]

So, you would never ever torture someone? Even if they knew where the ticking time bomb was and it would save thousands of lives?

 

[Diuretic]

So, you would never ever torture someone? Even if they knew where the ticking time bomb was and it would save thousands of lives?

With respect, you're assuming your conclusion. You wrote, "it would save thousands of lives." That assumes that the torture effort would be successful in this instance. That makes it too easy. Of course I would because you've already stated that all I have to do is torture the suspect and I would save thousands of lives, I'd be pretty callous not to, I'd be a bloody idiot to refuse to torture a suspect in that circumstance.

Let me ask a question:

Is it right to torture for any reason at all?

 

[Diuretic]

The Administration is using legal technicalities to support immoral practices. It's true, for example, that the combatants like al-qaeda aren't under the umbrella of the Geneva Convention. But you can't just look at that and decide it is ok to do whatever we want. You still have to consider right and wrong.

True. So is torture immoral? If so why? If not, why not?

 

[rayboyusmc]

So, you would never ever torture someone? Even if they knew where the ticking time bomb was and it would save thousands of lives?

Even if you knew that they would tell you whatever you wanted to hear just like McCain did to the NVA who tortured him.

Torture is used to get confession like this that you can use against the person or country.

Sounds like you listen to 24 too much.

Torture is morally wrong. Always has been. We exectuted other people for torturing our military, so why do we have the right to torture them.

This administration is a bunch of chickenshit cowards who will do anything they can to cover their asses.

Woo is just another pimp who sold himself to the highest bidder.

 

[Gunny]

Even if you knew that they would tell you whatever you wanted to hear just like McCain did to the NVA who tortured him.

Torture is used to get confession like this that you can use against the person or country.

Sounds like you listen to 24 too much.

Torture is morally wrong. Always has been. We exectuted other people for torturing our military, so why do we have the right to torture them.

This administration is a bunch of chickenshit cowards who will do anything they can to cover their asses.

Woo is just another pimp who sold himself to the highest bidder.

Wow. Torture is morally wrong? So are a lot of things promoted by liberalism and what is it you say ... don't try to legislate YOUR morality on ME? Who are YOU to decide what is and is not moral?

And torture has NOT always been considered morally wrong. Native Americans considered it a test of one's strength as a man. The Inquisitions tortured in God's name; which, technically would be saying it is morally right to do to heretics. The Romans and countless other societies throughout history used it as legal punishment.

As I have said, when you don't even know what you're bashing this administration for. You're just a snake in the blind. Can't see shit, but striking anyway.

 

[Swamp Fox]

With respect, you're assuming your conclusion. You wrote, "it would save thousands of lives." That assumes that the torture effort would be successful in this instance. That makes it too easy. Of course I would because you've already stated that all I have to do is torture the suspect and I would save thousands of lives, I'd be pretty callous not to, I'd be a bloody idiot to refuse to torture a suspect in that circumstance.

Let me ask a question:

Is it right to torture for any reason at all?

Depends on the circumstances. My feeling is that nothing should be off the table because then our enemies do not know what to expect from us. Fear of the unknown can be a powerful thing.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Even if you knew that they would tell you whatever you wanted to hear just like McCain did to the NVA who tortured him.

Torture is used to get confession like this that you can use against the person or country.

Sounds like you listen to 24 too much.

Torture is morally wrong. Always has been. We exectuted other people for torturing our military, so why do we have the right to torture them.

This administration is a bunch of chickenshit cowards who will do anything they can to cover their asses.

Woo is just another pimp who sold himself to the highest bidder.

Worked on Khalid Sheik Mohammed didn't it? He didn't tell us just anything to stop the pain, did he? He told us operational details that allowed US forces to stop terrorist attacks.

There is a difference between torture for fun, which the North Koreans, North Vietnamese and others have used, and pain for a purpose. It shouldn't be done randomly, but it should be done sometimes and in the right way.

 

[Diuretic]

Wow. Torture is morally wrong? So are a lot of things promoted by liberalism and what is it you say ... don't try to legislate YOUR morality on ME? Who are YOU to decide what is and is not moral?

And torture has NOT always been considered morally wrong. Native Americans considered it a test of one's strength as a man. The Inquisitions tortured in God's name; which, technically would be saying it is morally right to do to heretics. The Romans and countless other societies throughout history used it as legal punishment.

As I have said, when you don't even know what you're bashing this administration for. You're just a snake in the blind. Can't see shit, but striking anyway.

I'd be uncomfortable about suggesting torture was morally right for religious reasons. Is stoning people to death okay because it's encouraged by some religions? An act should stand to be evaluated for its morality by other than religious judgement.

Native Americans probably consented to it, torture is usually seen as being inflicted without consent.

Torture was definitely a punishment. Prisons used to be places, not for incarceration, but where someone was taken for their punishment to be administered.

 

[maineman]

Depends on the circumstances. My feeling is that nothing should be off the table because then our enemies do not know what to expect from us. Fear of the unknown can be a powerful thing.

should our police forces be able to torture people suspected of, say, child abuse or bank robbery?

 

[Diuretic]

Depends on the circumstances. My feeling is that nothing should be off the table because then our enemies do not know what to expect from us. Fear of the unknown can be a powerful thing.

Fear of the unknown is, frequently but not always of course, more powerful than the known.

But back to torture, I agree with you, the circumstances are very important.

If someone tortures someone else for pleasure (the tortured person not consenting) is that moral?

 

[Diuretic]

Worked on Khalid Sheik Mohammed didn't it? He didn't tell us just anything to stop the pain, did he? He told us operational details that allowed US forces to stop terrorist attacks.

There is a difference between torture for fun, which the North Koreans, North Vietnamese and others have used, and pain for a purpose. It shouldn't be done randomly, but it should be done sometimes and in the right way.

We'll know for sure when he's on trial.

And it looks like you've answered my question before I put it. So, torturing someone for pleasure isn't moral.

Is torturing someone for gain morally right?

 

[Annie]

We'll know for sure when he's on trial.

And it looks like you've answered my question before I put it. So, torturing someone for pleasure isn't moral.

Is torturing someone for gain morally right?

I hear you. At the same time I guess I'd wager my soul over 1, versus more. It's not a good choice. On a local analogy, as a cop I'd bet that I'd let some speeders on an arterial street go by at 15 or 20 over, while nailing the guy going 8 over on a residential. Why? Greater good.

 

[Swamp Fox]

should our police forces be able to torture people suspected of, say, child abuse or bank robbery?

Now you are comparing apples and oranges. This means you must have run out of your pitiful arguments and are looking to change the rules to extend your line of bullshit.

And having investigated child abuse cases, there are some of them that deserve to be tortured.

 

[Swamp Fox]

We'll know for sure when he's on trial.

And it looks like you've answered my question before I put it. So, torturing someone for pleasure isn't moral.

Is torturing someone for gain morally right?

Depending on the circumstances, I would say it could be.

 

[Diuretic]

Depending on the circumstances, I would say it could be.

If the gain was commercial, let's say (and I know this is ridiculous but I'm just trying to work through some half-arsed ideas) the torturer was extracting information from the tortured such as where he (the tortured) keeps his cash. Would that be morally right?

I know, I know - I'm not saying I have an answer or I know anything, just trying to work out a few ideas.

 

[midcan5]

This administration is probably the most un-American in our history. Amazing what fear can do when little men are in charge.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/68399/

"If you think we are living in scary times, your worst fears may be confirmed by reading Naomi Wolf's newest book, The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot. In it, Wolf proves the old axiom that history does repeat itself. Or more accurately, history occurs in patterns, and in order to understand where our country is today and where it is headed, we need to read the history books."

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc[/ame]

 

[rayboyusmc]

Wow. Torture is morally wrong? So are a lot of things promoted by liberalism

What a horseshit response. You support torture? You support our troops being tortured? I guess there is nothing conservative that is morally wrong?

We legislate morality all the fuckking time. We call it murder and it is wrong.

I don't believe that we have now come to arguing that torture is right. Wow, thank you Bush for creating our new way of seeing the world.