Bush to bypass torture ban

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by crabtastic, Jan 4, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I am confident that he will end up in the dock, the way he is carrying on! Nixon thought he was safe as well...:twisted:
     
  2. He probably will end up in bother over something (the current scandal over lobbying looks like a good one...)

    However... In a situation where a terrorist suspect has time critical information that may prevent the deaths of civilians, don't we need the option of torture? The Israelis use it, with political oversight at the highest levels, and have saved lives. At the same time, they use the threat of torture as an effective means of getting information in less time pressured cases, as well as psychological methods that border on torture.

    Its not that I like the idea of torture, or even think that its particularly effective, but I do know that we need every weapon available to us to combat zealots who are prepared to blow themselves up on tubes, buses and aeroplanes. We are at war with these people.

    Israel is not a shining paragon of oversight and appropriate treatment of suspects, but they know and understand what they are fighting. The question I'd ask people here is: are we prepared to sacrifice liberties and freedoms to provide security?
     
  3. FAQ: Torture and the Constitution.

    Can the president authorize torture?

    No. The president can only authorize appropriate means.

    Could those appropriate means include torture?

    It's not torture if the president says it's not torture. It's merely appropriate. Remember, America is under constant attack from terrorism. The president must use any means necessary to protect America.

    Won't the American people object?

    Not if they're scared enough.


    By Jon Carroll.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/02/DDG5TG01E31.DTL&type=printable
     
  4. When john was a young lad serveing in Brunei the Sgt Maj from the Regt attached to Training Team Brunei passed on a few words of wisdom. Mistreatment of captives was/is counter productive. A firm but respectful attitude produced the truth, talking just talking to a captive in a polite friendly manner worked wonders and the prisoner would unknowingly cough up all sorts of genunei information.
    I do wonder now how the US will ever have the neck or moral courage to prosecute enemy troops who in the future 'Render' US military IAW their ideas on acceptable information extraction methods.
    john
    I am still very much of the opinion that King George is just a puppet operated by the evil brains around this alkoholic drug sodden wreck that hold the highest Office.
     
  5. Cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is expressly prohibited by the Universal Declaration of Human Right to which the USA is a signatory. For a nation which so frequently refers to universals like freedom and justice it seems incredible to me that they can so obviously and deliberately pursue such contradictory policies. Ultimately the US' current stance towards torture is counter-productive and loses them support, thus making the US more vulnerable.

    The American creation myth states that the USA was founded out of a struggle against British tyranny - who is the tyrant now?
     
  6. We are at war with a ruthless enemy that obeys no laws of international conduct. Captured terrorists have information that we need to obtain. It is not the policy of the US government to torture prisoners. Prisoners will be subjected to interrogation
    techniques that are in accordance with standard practices. The bottom line is that information saves lives. To not bother questioning prisoners because we dont want to hurt their feelings is not going to save lives.
     
  7. T6 I wish Bush would just come out with it and say "yes we do carry out torture" instead of all this pussyfooting around.
     
  8. So lets see what have the dems (left) tried so far to rally the US masses into impeachment or vote against frenzy so far (no specific order):
    1) That Bush was a deserter.
    2) That Bush altered intelligence data.
    3) 1000 then 2000 KIA in Iraq
    4) Cindie Sheehan anti-war (related to 2 and 3)
    5) Illegal war
    6) NSA spying on US Citizens
    7) The Plame outting

    and all have failed to gather any significant support by voters of both parties. In fact the recent NSA scandal seems to have 51% of registered Dem voters supporting the President, of course after all facts of the story have been aired in public. Now the Dems are going to try and hang their impeach Bush hat on Abramoff. Of course when that too fails they will probably look at the torture bit.

    :D
     
  9. maninblack

    maninblack LE Book Reviewer

    Ctauch,

    You are preeching to the converted. In the UK with have a leader who is morally corrupt beyond belief, who partners the shaved ape in everything he does, who hounds a scientist to his death in lysterious circumstances, has destroyed the right to free speech, the right of assembly in a public place, the right to protest, has made half the chief constables his political bitch in return for a medal or a knighthood and who's wife has her nose so far into the trough that she has been forced to evolve gills to maintain respiration.

    Still, the majority are happy because the government put on a really good firework display on New Years Eve and that is what really matters. Throw a few bead at the natives and you can have Manhattan; it worked then and it still works now.
     
  10. The problem is that the PC definition of torture is so wide open to interpretation that any effective interogation becomes impossible which is what the bad guys want, which is why their brothers in arms in the human rights movement make such an issue of it. A simple question: Is torture right?....Answer ... no.... In a life or death situation can it be justified... answer ...yes... It does not make it right but merely the lesser of two wrongs. Would anyone here not torture someone who had kidnapped their child and the clock was ticking?
     
  11. So, let me get this straight- "we" need to do whatever we consider necessary to achieve our aims and objectives.

    And so, the difference between "us" and "them" is?

    Nice attempt at trying to change the course of the debate.

    It would appear that the Republican Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and two or his Republican friend have beaten the Dems to it:

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/05/3_gop_senators_blast_bush_bid_to_bypass_torture_ban/

    P.S. Articles of impeachment can only be raised by the House of Representatives. Do you honestly think a Republican House would raise such articles against this guy when they have been so complicit in backing his agenda?
     
  12. Again I feel we overanalyse these things ... to me the important fact is that the current US policy on torture is one of the best recruiting tools their enemies have. The US needs to win the information war to succeed in its current mission. However, as it is now seen to stand for occupying foreign countries, bombing civilians, torture instead of peace, freedom and democracy I'm not holding my breath.

    What middle America thinks is irrelevant. Middle America isn't going to strap on a semtex waistcoat and go shred some GIs. There are people who are doing that now who would not be doing it if the US hadn't bungled the information war so badly. Mindlessly mouthing platitudes about mythical scenarios with nukes in cities are utterly pointless - in such a scenario you or I would do what we thought appropriate. And outside such scenarios torture recruits for your opposition faster than you can put them away. Or have we yet again "turned the corner", "broken the back of the insurgency", "cut the head off the snake" while I've been typing ?

    We need professionals in charge of interrogation, not a bunch of heavy breathing amateurs that get off on hurting people.
     
  13. And did we worry about hearts and minds during WW2? We did what was necessary to beat a vicious and evil enemy then we did what was necessary, just as we will do what is necessary now. It is a battle of survival between our way of life and theirs just as WW2 was. I prefer the iron fist inside the velvet glove approach rather than the touchy feely lets hug some trees and love our enemy brigade. Kill all that oppose us and let Allah sort them out...
     
  14. There's another aspect to consider- the message this sends to the troops and int officers. The confusion is very much like having vague and complex RoE. Whenever there is going to be be trouble arising from a publicised instances of abuse and/or torture, who do you think is going to be hung out to dry? Will it be the National Security Council, or will it be a 23yr old Sgt or a 25yr old case officer?