Ed Senate: Torture should not be our legacy

[RandFan]

A brief moment of clarity.

Senate votes to ban use of torture

The Senate on Tuesday overwhelmingly voted to ban the U.S. from ever again subjecting prisoners to waterboarding, “rectal feeding” and other brutal interrogation practices widely condemned as torture.

In a 78-21 vote, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle supported a new prohibition on "enhanced interrogation" practices and other novel detention methods.

“We must continue to insist that the methods we employ in this fight for peace and freedom must always, always, be as right and honorable as the goals and ideals we fight for,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee and an author of the amendment.

“Our enemies act without conscience. We must not.”

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I wouldn't want any potential trials pooched by tainted confessions, for sure. I think unfortunately that might be the case for *********** KSM, the murderous bastard.

 

[NotJesus]

The 21 who voted against the ban (all Republicans):

Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Michael Crapo of Idaho, James Risch of Idaho, Daniel Coats of Indiana, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, David Vitter of Louisiana, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, Benjamin Sasse of Nebraska, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Tim Scott of South Carolina, John Cornyn of Texas, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Mike Lee of Utah, John Barrasso of Wyoming

Marco Rubio of Florida didn't vote.

 

[Upchurch]

I wouldn't want any potential trials pooched by tainted confessions, for sure. I think unfortunately that might be the case for *********** KSM, the murderous bastard.

...and because torture is a monstrous act and we're not monsters.

Or, we shouldn't be.

 

[theprestige]

It's not as simple as saying 'torture is bad, no more torture, no legacy of torture'. There's a lot of debate to be had among reasonable people about what acts are included, what acts should be retained as options, and what acts should be repudiated and banned. The measure cited in the OP does appear to single out specific acts as prohibited, but that information seems to be elided here in favor of a simplistic "torture is bad" approach to the question. I may not agree with the Senate's conclusion, but I like their approach a lot better.











And now I'm just taking a moment to enjoy the irony that an American political body seems to be doing a better job of thinking critically than are the skeptics here gathered.

 

[RandFan]

It's not as simple as saying 'torture is bad, no more torture, no legacy of torture'. There's a lot of debate to be had among reasonable people about what acts are included, what acts should be retained as options, and what acts should be repudiated and banned.

As a former advocate of Bush's enhanced interrogation techniques I think we should simply follow the experts who rely on scientific data and history. I also think we should follow the experts who have already codified the rules.

Keep in mind, the Bush admin sought to circumvent the rules already in place.

Following accounts of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq, one of the memos was leaked to the press in June 2004. Jack Goldsmith, then head of the Office of Legal Counsel, had already withdrawn the Yoo memos and advised agencies not to rely on them.

 

[RandFan]

It's not as simple as saying 'torture is bad, no more torture, no legacy of torture'.

I started a thread to discuss the enhanced interrogation techniques a decade ago. I was in support of those techniques. I sought a discussion so as to test my own views. I changed them based on facts.

And now I'm just taking a moment to enjoy the irony that an American political body seems to be doing a better job of thinking critically than are the skeptics here gathered.

 

[Upchurch]

And now I'm just taking a moment to enjoy the irony that an American political body seems to be doing a better job of thinking critically than are the skeptics here gathered.

Have you missed or forgotten the pages and pages of threads on this board already dedicated to the subject? There is no reason to think it has been oversimplified or escaped the critical thinking grinder on this board.

 

[NotJesus]

It's not as simple as saying 'torture is bad, no more torture, no legacy of torture'. There's a lot of debate to be had among reasonable people about what acts are included, what acts should be retained as options, and what acts should be repudiated and banned. The measure cited in the OP does appear to single out specific acts as prohibited, but that information seems to be elided here in favor of a simplistic "torture is bad" approach to the question. I may not agree with the Senate's conclusion, but I like their approach a lot better.

It would limit the entire government to the techniques in the Army Field Manual and it would require regular updates to that manual to ensure it "reflects current, evidence-based, best practices for interrogation." So no, it doesn't ban specific acts by name, but the practical effect would be to ban things like waterboarding and rectal feeding. And reasonable people would have the opportunity to debate about what should be included in future editions of the manual. Sounds like a good bill to me, but perhaps you'd like to enlighten my simplistic, "torture is bad" outlook by suggesting which techniques from outside the manual might be worth retaining as options.

 

[BStrong]

I've heard an account of flat out torture from an eyeball witness (not the current GWOT, not involving US actors) that didn't elicit anything of value, and if what I heard was the straight up truth I don't see where any of this "enhanced technique" jive would do much more than wear out the party being interrogated and the interrogator.

I agree w/ McCain on this 100%.

 

[theprestige]

Have you missed or forgotten the pages and pages of threads on this board already dedicated to the subject? There is no reason to think it has been oversimplified or escaped the critical thinking grinder on this board.

It is exactly in the context of those threads that I find irony in the current one.

 

[RandFan]

A blast from the past

RandFan defends "enhanced interrogation techniques".

Except for the sleep deprivation I don't think the others qualify as torture and it is common to call any change in sleep patterns as sleep deprivation. It's true that one could get 8 hours of sleep but be deprived of sleep if one is only allowed to sleep for 1 hour every three hours. The article doesn't tell us how much sleep is given only that it is sleep deprivation.

THERE'S skepticism and critical thinking for you.

 

[RandFan]

It is exactly in the context of those threads that I find irony in the current one.

Could you provide an example to explain what it is you mean? I once defended the techniques I now think should be forever left in our past. I changed my mind due to discussion of the issues involved. This makes me uncritical how?

What's the problem here?

 

[TragicMonkey]

The 21 who voted against the ban (all Republicans):

Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Michael Crapo of Idaho, James Risch of Idaho, Daniel Coats of Indiana, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, David Vitter of Louisiana, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, Benjamin Sasse of Nebraska, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Tim Scott of South Carolina, John Cornyn of Texas, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Mike Lee of Utah, John Barrasso of Wyoming

Marco Rubio of Florida didn't vote.

Funny, I recognize some of those names from their vehement opposition to people voluntarily putting things in their butts. Yet somehow it's okay to put things in people's butts against their will? Ethics are a strange and twisted place, particularly around the butt area.

 

[Crossbow]

I wouldn't want any potential trials pooched by tainted confessions, for sure. I think unfortunately that might be the case for *********** KSM, the murderous bastard.

About 50% of the electorate believes the same way about torture. They may not like it, but they want to have a torture option available.

By a happy coincidence about 50% of the electorate also believe in creationism.

 

[Arcade22]

Our enemies act without conscience. We must not.

Hollow and empty words considering that they let the torturers get away with complete impunity. I guess they are completely blameless as long as they torture, murder and lie under oath with the belief that their actions were for the greater good.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It's not as simple as saying 'torture is bad, no more torture, no legacy of torture'.

Yes. Yes it is.

Edit: Well, OK, so there's the whole thing about making sure we don't torture anyone anymore. That does seem to be incredibly difficult for some reason. Too attractive an option for some who would remain too far away from that action, or some mal-adjusted individuals, I suppose.

 

[theprestige]

Yes. Yes it is.

You got me, it is that easy. The hard part is getting a consensus on the definition of "torture".

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the show?

 

[RandFan]

The hard part is getting a consensus on the definition of "torture".

No it's not. The law is the same now as it was before 9/11. The Bush admin simply skirted the law with a series of memos that hold no weight of law. They were opinions. They were wrong. Their purpose was to legalize torture.

Tell us where the controversy is? Do you reject the definition in the Uniform Military Code of Justice?

The idea that it's difficult to come up with a definition is a smoke screen. We had laws in place. We just needed to follow them. The new law simply says that we will follow the law from now on.

 

[applecorped]

...and because torture is a monstrous act and we're not monsters.

Or, we shouldn't be.

We are, and have always been. We just have good press.