home

Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror Suspects

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:22:19 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


On NPR yesterday, former President Bill Clinton opposed torture of terror detainees.

In an interview with National Public Radio aired on Thursday, Clinton said any decision to use harsh treatment in interrogating suspects should be subject to court review. "You don't need blanket advance approval for blanket torture," Clinton said.

Clinton warned against circumventing international standards on prisoner treatment, citing U.S. abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, criticism of treatment at the Guantanamo Bay prison for suspected terrorists and a secret CIA prison system outside the United States.

Clinton also critized Bush's program:

"The president says he's just trying to get the rules clear about how far the CIA can go when they're when they whacking these people around in these secret prisons," Clinton said in NPR's "Morning Edition" interview, recorded on Wednesday.

"If you go around passing laws that legitimize a violation of the Geneva Convention and institutionalize what happened at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, we're going to be in real trouble," he said.

He also addressed the issue of a suspect who might have information of an imminent attack:

Even if there were circumstances where such treatment is necessary to prevent an imminent attacks, Clinton said: "You don't make laws based on that. You don't sit there and say in general torture's fine if you're a terrorist suspect. For one thing, we know we have erred in who was a real suspect."

< House Approves Strip Search Bill | David Broder's Beltway "Wisdom" >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror Suspects | 64 comments (64 topical)
    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:38:00 AM EST
    et al - We again come to the question, what is torture? Clinton's inability to make a decision on that, and his programed reponse to turn it over to the courts again demonstrates the Demos desire to not govern, but to posture.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#2)
    by Sailor on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:50:45 AM EST
    We again come to the question, what is torture?
    No, we don't. It is quite well defined and only morons try to obfuscate the issue.
    Clinton's inability to make a decision on that
    He did make a decision on it, he didn't torture people.
    his programed reponse to turn it over to the courts again demonstrates the Demos desire to not govern, but to posture.
    Posturing!? Hey, remember "wanted dead or alive?" WTF is OBL! Of course what do you expect from a commenter who still insisits that Canada refused to take Arar and that is why the US sent him to Syria to be tortured.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#3)
    by bk1955 on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:58:04 AM EST
    Please go to for a definition of torture. Torture is immoral and should not be perpetrated by human beings. The ends do not justify the means.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:26:57 AM EST
    Q: What do you make of the torture debate?... A: ... The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it. Retired Command Sergeant Major Eric Haney, founding member of Delta Force
    I would add that anyone who supports torture probably does so for the same reason. They like it.... ---edger

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#5)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:41:10 AM EST
    We again come to the question, what is torture?
    Anything Dick Cheney would not want me to do to him. Anything YOU would not want me to do to you. I'm going with Jesus on this, and I'm assuming you accept Jesus as a voice for morality with a little more authority than, say, George W. Bush. "Inasmuch as you have done this to the least of these, my brethren, you have done it to me." Or, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." See how simple these things are? BTW, if you believe that George W. Bush or Dick Cheney are more important arbiters of morality than Jesus, say so here. Just so we're clear. As the recent example of Maher Arar shows, innocence or truth is no defense against a determined torturer, who can extract any confession or lie he desires to hear. Since torture is useless as a tool for finding truth, let's call it what it is: a sick revenge upon helpless enemies by sociopathic personalities. I try not to associate with such people, but they show up here anyway.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#6)
    by theologicus on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:48:02 AM EST
    People who pretend that we don't know what constitutes torture as well as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under international law are disingenuous. Shunning is the best way to deal with them.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#8)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 09:53:24 AM EST
    On NPR yesterday, former President Bill Clinton opposed torture of terror detainees.
    A remarkable grasp of the obvious, just short of accepting gravity as the prime attractive force.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 10:37:51 AM EST
    What I have a hard time believing is that there is any debate on this issue at all. If you'd told me 6 years ago that Americans would be discussing how much torture is OK, and that the president would be calling for more is incomprehensible to me. It's morally wrong; if you believe in heaven and hell then you are definitely going to hell if you if you are a party to torture. It is functionally wrong; people will eventually say anything you want and most experts agree that torture doesn't work to elicit correct information. Only truly sick minds would debate its definition and use. A simple definition is, if you don't want it done to your children, it's wrong to do to others.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 11:00:49 AM EST
    Funny how no U.S. President, General, Admiral, JAG officer, or MP had any problem with the definition until five deferment Dick and no show George decided that they wanted to go beyond what the military had been doing for the last 60 years. The real difference now is that the present administration doesn't understand the meaning of words like "freedom", "liberty", "due process", and human rights". If the did, they wouldn't need to worry about the definition of torture.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 11:04:10 AM EST
    Rev. Louis P. Sheldon speaking for the 'Traditional Values Coalition' is onboard the Torture Train and supports Bush's proposal to allow CIA interogators to violate the Geneva Convention in thier use of waterboarding and other forms of torture. http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2854

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:13:34 PM EST
    Edger, Spot on in an ugly way. A perverse satisfaction gained from the act of torturing is necessary to "do the job well", undoubtedly. Supporters cling to the belief that it's necessary because it works, that only those with vital information are tortured, even in the face of mountains of contrary evidence. They cling to a combination of the aforementioned satisfaction in the act as a form of misplaced vengeance and in the vacant belief in its usefulness and/or necessity. Nor do they acknowledge generally that keeping (now regaining, or attempting to) our moral standing on the issue is even the slightest worry to them. The wider implications of backsliding on this, the idea that we, as America, set the example (and not by "humanely" redefining the definition of torture), it just doesn't register. Fear has just paralyzed their intellects, frozen it more I should say, as well as some vital portion of their humanity.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:13:34 PM EST
    Sailor: ...that Americans would be discussing how much torture is OK, and that the president would be calling for more is incomprehensible to me....A simple definition is, if you don't want it done to your children, it's wrong to do to others. Well put, Sailor. There is an old quote that I don't know who to attribute to:
    "What would the child you once were think of the adult you have become?"
    I've often found it useful to ask myself when considering moral issues. ---edger

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#13)
    by TomStewart on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:13:34 PM EST
    When you resort to torture, you lose and the enemy wins, for you justify anything they say and do against you. Torture doesn't work, it's as simple as that.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:13:34 PM EST
    "We again come to the question, what is torture? " you're totally right. until the ambiguity in the wording of the Geneva Conventions is changed to specifically let bush know that we can't utilize sharks and alligators, we, as a nation, have no choice but to utilize sharks and alligators in our 'alternative interrogation techniques.'

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#15)
    by jen on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:13:34 PM EST
    no, morons know what torture is. Animals know what torture is. Its only people of certain moral bent who claim they don't know. People who honestly don't know are called psychopaths because of a total lack of empathy and moral center.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:13:34 PM EST
    the idea behind torture is to get information from people who dont want to give it up. but there are other, equally if not more effective ways to obtain information from people. i was never anywhere near a US military prison (as far as i know) so i dont know just how rapant it really is. i dont put much stock into what the media says about how much torture really happens, but the fact is that any is too much, especially considering the availability of other techniques. that being said, there is still a question of what is torture. i have notice a lot of people on here that seem to think that if you wouldnt want it done to your children or yourself, then it's torture. but i cant buy into that theory b/c who wants to be in a military prison? by that definition, imprisonment in itself is torture. in a way, i guess it might be, but i dont think anyone could argue that it's not necessary. perhaps the prisoners are being held for too long w/o trials (argument is neither here nor there b/c it's not my point). my point is that is torture beating people up while their tied up? absolutely. is torture hanging people by their wrists and giving them electric shock? absolutely. is torture not allowing people to eat for a while? maybe. is torture not allowing people to see sunlight until they get information out of them? maybe. is torture tying people up and tickling the $h!t out of them? maybe. there is no doubt that some of the images seen in some gitmo pictures is torture. but to so loosely define torture as something you dont want done to you or your children is not good enough. i agree that we should not be torturing people at all. but, we should define a little more clearly what is torture. perhaps we should define it as physical harm. but then that leaves open mental torture, which could conceivably be much worse than physical torture. you also have to remember that the guards in places like this are sometimes pretty young and have only been taught the military way, where pain is merely an indicator that you're still alive. to be rediculously hard on those people is not fair either b/c if we dont want them to do certain things, we should tell them. i dont know if they did for sure b/c i've never been a military prison guard, but i would imagine they didnt tell them specifically what is and is not allowed. the definitions are very broad. again, however, each person should be able to use enough judgement to know that some of those things that we've seen in pictures of gitmo should absolutely never be done to another human. i think pres clinton hit the nail on the head when he said you dont need pre-approval to commit torture. it's not as simple as putting people in that position and telling them to do what they have to do to get information from the prisoners but dont torture them. to cap all of that, can we elect sen hillary clinton president with the precedence that we get bill as the real president again? that guy kicks a$$.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:13:34 PM EST
    -- my bad...the long post in which i said bill clinton kicks a$$ was posted by peacerevol....i meant to put that at the bottom so yall would know.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#18)
    by Richard Aubrey on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:13:34 PM EST
    Seems the word is in: It works. I believe it was on ABC recently. The Big One Four recently transported to Gitmo and seeing the light of day were all interrogated coercively, gave up important information and innocent lives were saved. The caveat that the guy will say anything to stop the pain is valid. That's why the interrogator wants to have a file of valid stuff which he can use to convince the prisoner that lying is useless. Also, you know from one prisoner something about the issue, which improves the results of talking to the other. So this is a problem which has been addressed. It's useless to haul it out as if it is unanswerable. Other commenters have made the point that torture works and that's the problem. If it didn't, there'd be no dilemma. Since it does work, Wretchard argues, we ought to be honest enough to tell our citizens the potential price for foregoing it and let them decide while in full possession of the facts. It is dishonest to pretend we can forego torture and pay no price. We ought to make it clear what price we will pay and see what the answer is. Why would the left object to people making a decision in possession of the facts? Torture actually worked on McCain and his fellow prisoners.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:13:34 PM EST
    If there is a complete ban on torture, will that mean no more dubya speeches on the television?

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#20)
    by ScottW on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:13:34 PM EST
    "We again come to the question, what is torture?" - JimakaPPJ Funny how the definition of torture is only in question when we have prisoners. Do you really think there would be a debate if people were treating Americans they way we are treating our prisoners ? Why do we take them to countries that condone torture if the issue is in limbo? Why not put them on US soil? They know what torture is and they are doing it, it's just sad that the word is so vile, they can't even bring them selves to say it. So PPJ, when you speak of posture, ask yourself why not ONE single person can even bring themselves to say the word.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:13:34 PM EST
    Sailor: ...that Americans would be discussing how much torture is OK, and that the president would be calling for more is incomprehensible to me....A simple definition is, if you don't want it done to your children, it's wrong to do to others. Well put, Sailor. There is an old quote that I don't know who to attribute to:
    "What would the child you once were think of the adult you have become?"
    I've often found it a question useful to ask when considering moral issues.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#22)
    by cpinva on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:13:34 PM EST
    et al - We again come to the question, what is torture?
    jim, i had a really snappy comeback lined up, but this is such an egregiously stupid comment, even from you, that it isn't worthy of response. shame on you!

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#23)
    by Richard Aubrey on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 04:02:13 PM EST
    I wouldn't want my child shot. That doesn't mean I wouldn't want a terrorist shot. The worst technique used on the new residents of Miami South was waterboarding. As many have said, some on this board when the subject was discussed some months ago, waterboarding is done to our own folks in training. Ordinary people are not likely to buy into your false outrage when they ask themselves the question of why we can't do to terrorists what we do to our own people. And, considering what happens to our people when the enemy has them, what we do would be an improvement. Which ordinary people also know. I keep saying, you can play your headgames with each other, but they don't sound on the outside of this echo chamber as compelling as you like to think they do. Anyway, would anybody here have an objection to a discussion of the subject when the costs of foregoing coercive interrogation are honestly discussed? I say again: It works. By definition, then, not doing it will have a cost.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#25)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 04:19:21 PM EST
    Seems the word is in: It works.
    Only if truth is not the objective. Remember, Maher Arar confessed to being a member of al Qaeda even though it was not true. Richard, how does innocence or truth defend a subject from torture if the torturer does not believe him? Let's call it what it is: a sick revenge visited upon a helpless subject by a sociopath who would not believe the victim if the truth were not convenient. Let's be clear what it is not: a search or truth. Suggesting that lives were saved by torture requires an example, and if one existed, wouldn't we have heard about it by now? We know for certain that Mr. Arar's innocence did not protect him. What do YOU have to say to Mr. Arar about his ten months of torture despite his innocence? I cannot believe that this is even a subject for discussion. Anyone defending these barbaric practices is so disgusting that there are not proper words to describe their sickness and filth.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#26)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 04:21:43 PM EST
    And, considering what happens to our people when the enemy has them, what we do would be an improvement. Which ordinary people also know.
    This is a REALLY disgusting excuse for sociopathy and sadism. How do you live with yourself?

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 04:50:22 PM EST
    Apparently, for most on this thread, they can't tell you what torture is, but they sure know it when they see it. Very helpful. Clinton said, essentially, nothing. But, boy, it sure sounded good. I bet he also supports eating a balanced diet, holding doors for the aged, and not sitting too close to the TV. I'll alert the presses. Very SlickWillie-like.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#28)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 04:51:56 PM EST
    The Big One Four recently transported to Gitmo and seeing the light of day were all interrogated coercively, gave up important information and innocent lives were saved. Got links?

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 05:05:49 PM EST
    Let me get this straight: the self-styled "Greatest Country on Earth", the oldest continous democracy on earth, the bellwether of western liberal democracies, the U. S. of A., the self-appointed arbiter of which countries are good and which ones are evil, now finds it necessary to engage in a tortuous (and, no doubt, torturous) debate on "what constitutes torture"? WHY ARE WE DOING THIS!!!!!????? We are doing it because The Bush League wants to REDEFINE away the negative implications of torture (like there could ever be any positive ones!). If we can REDEFINE what it means to be evil, then we create the perception that whatever it is that we are engaging in, it surely is not evil - because evil is ... (fill in the blank with the new definition). The only damned reason WHY we need to REDEFINE what torture is, is quite simple: The Bush League wants to 1) engage in large-scale, institutionalized torture (yeah, like it hasn't already been doing that for the past 5 years!), and 2) it wants to insulate itself from ANY AND ALL liability under the law for engaging in what are clearly illegal acts. The Bush League has no use for law - other than to insulate itself FROM THE LAW. Just look back at this joke-of-an-administration's outrageously sordid record when it comes to respect for ANY form of law that gets in the way of its own agenda. Paging Dr. Orwell. Dr. Orwell, paging Dr. Orwell ...

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 05:17:17 PM EST
    Bush is a linguist's wet dream - which is why reading a linguist who is well-versed in American domestic and foreign policy is so very necessary to this dialogue of the deaf. Hugo Chavez was right on the money: pick up Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival" and see what I mean. Even if you loathe Chomsky's political views, you've nonetheless got to respect his august position as the father of modern linguistics. If you redefine evil, then you can engage in otherwise evil acts with a clear conscience. Just ask Stanley Milgram about redefining evil; his social experiments remain blood-chilling even today. Everyone is capable of very great evil. Which is why we have law. Get rid of law and what do we have?

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 06:06:36 PM EST
    et al - I ask a question, and you have no answer. Like Clinton you duck behind the "judge." Or if not that, words that are meaningless. Do you want your child shot? How dumb. The facts are that you called throwing a book into a toliet torture. How drool. How definitive of the condition of the Left at the start of the 21st century.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#35)
    by John Mann on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 07:12:21 PM EST
    Richard Aubrey observed:
    The worst technique used on the new residents of Miami South was waterboarding.
    How do you know that, Richard? Seriously, how do you know that?

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#36)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 07:20:25 PM EST
    The facts are that you called throwing a book into a toliet torture. How drool. How definitive of the condition of the Left at the start of the 21st century.
    Since this act is not likely to elicit any truth from the victim or save any lives, what you are saying is that you are entertained by the abuse of defenseless subjects even if they have not been shown to have done anything wrong. Your glee in the suffering of others seems to be a rightwing trait. Manners prohibit an appropriate response. I am above abusing others, even if they have been ACCUSED but not convicted of something. Some years ago a man brutally murdered the mother, father and brother of one of my closest friends, people I also knew very well. Seven years later the killer was back on the streets, and my friend did not wish to visit upon this person the abuse you wish to heap upon people accused but not proven to be terrorists. He knew it wouldn't change the past, and that it would lower him to the same level to seek revenge. He is a better person than you are, by far.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#38)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 07:35:27 PM EST
    How definitive of the condition of the Left at the start of the 21st century.
    I would like to know what you would say to Maher Arar, kidnapped and subjected to 10 months of torture, even though he was innocent. He confessed to crimes that he hadn't committed, which shows definitively that truth is not what torture is about. Torture is about sadistic sociopaths unrestrained by rules. I am ashamed of my country for that act. What do YOU have to say to a man who has suffered like that at our hands? You will ignore this post, because any answer would reveal your glee in the suffering of others. For the record, that is NOT a "liberal" trait.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 06:23:01 AM EST
    RePack - From the dictionary:
    drool - to talk nonsense
    Perhaps you should read a dictionary before you accuse people. As to your claim that your "friend" is a better person than your correspondent, I will leave that for God to decide. You, of course, are always welcome to your opinion, no matter how confused your moral compass is. To wit. My point was and remains. Much, but not all, of what the Left claims to be torture is not. And by doing so the Left aids those who would torture by providing them a cover of ridiculous statements and standards. As for Arar, my comment would be simple and to the point.
    Life is not fair. You got caught up in a panic situation and received no help from your country. Sorry about that. Just as I an sorry about all those killed on 9/11 and other terrorist attacks.
    And I think your definition of liberal is as accurate as your definition of "drool."

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#44)
    by Sailor on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 07:15:07 AM EST
    et al - I ask a question, and you have no answer.
    If you have to ask, we can't afford you ... or people like you.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 07:50:08 AM EST
    Jimaka, You would say to Arar and any others that we don't know about yet, "Sorry about that old bean, you just got caught up in a panic situation, just go on with your life"? Wow! So if you were falsely accused of being a terrorist, tortured for years, seperated from your family, held without trial, no one knowing where you were, when released, you'd say nothing more than, "NO problem, chaps, everyone makes a mistake now and then, no hard feelings, stiff upper lip, and all, as long as it was in support of Lord George's divine war"? Reminds me of the old wring of the rise of the Nazis, "When the came for the Jews, I said nothing..." If anyone needs to go back to school to be reminded of why our forefathers thought that due process and habeous corpus were so important, it's you. So, is your favorite philosopher the same as Shrub's alleged philo, Jesus Christ? Or is it Marquis De Sade? Sunday school might help you also.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#49)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 08:08:37 AM EST
    How drool.
    And I think your definition of liberal is as accurate as your definition of "drool."
    "Drool" is an intransitive verb, and you used it as an adjective. I was a magazine editor at one time, and my grasp and use of the English language were good enough that I was paid to correct others' usage. I'm still doing that, but I am no longer being paid.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 08:17:02 AM EST
    Sorry about the typos in my post above, I don't edit too well when I'm blinded by rage

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 09:31:35 AM EST
    Torture is anything done to another person that people try to excuse themselves for by claiming that "this is not torture - we don't torture". No one needs to ask what torture is. If you ask, you already know. If you claim you don't know you're lying to yourself, and fooling no one else.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 09:31:35 AM EST
    Torture is anything done to another person that people try to excuse themselves for by claiming that "this is not torture - we don't torture". No one needs to ask what torture is. If you ask, you already know. If you claim you don't know you're lying to yourself, and fooling no one else.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 09:31:35 AM EST
    i dont think the issue is redefining torture. it's just defining it. for example, one of the biggest techniques in question that is sort of in the gray area is waterboarding. waterboarding is a far less physical technique than it is a mental technique. waterboarding entails tying someone to a board with their feet elevated above their head slightly so that their lungs will be higher than their noses and mouths. then the interrogator wraps cellophane over the prisoner's face and pours water over him. the gag reflex kicks in every time and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to stop it. generally, it takes about 15-20 seconds. this technique works when applied properly. khalid sheik mohammed was said to have been subjected to the technique when they were trying to get a confession from him. much of the information included in the 9-11 commission report came from KSM (as he is referred to in the 9-11 commission report). whether it works or not depends on who you're interrogating and what information you're after. in the case of KSM, it worked b/c the intel that they already had more or less pointed towards some involvement but they didnt know how much. the waterboarding got him to talk - supposedly (i'm not sure that they truly used the technique on him, but that's the rumor). now the question is, is this technique torturous/inhumane? it only lasts a few seconds and there are few if any long term physical effects b/c they usually dont have to continue the technique long enough for someone to become unconcious. drowning is highly unlikely, because the head is below the lungs so it's difficult to aspirate large amounts of water into the lungs. the biggest risks of long term effects are mental. people may be scared of water after that or scared of rain, whatever. but in the case of KSM, maybe a little long term fear is good for him, since by planning attacks that are aimed at trying to terrorize americans and put a lasting fear in them, he has opened himself up to some fear. seems fair to me. i'm not a proponent of using this technique on just anybody, but in relatively extreme cases like that, it's not a big deal, imho. -- peacerevol

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 09:31:35 AM EST
    Reminds me of the old wring of the rise of the Nazis, "When the came for the Jews, I said nothing..."
    that's a very disturbing thought for me b/c i dont agree with a whole lot of what the govt does, but how do i change it? who really knows how to change things within our government? i mean short of running for office, there's not much we regular people can do, that i know of. the govt has become so powerful that it just does what it wants without giving a good g*&&@mn what we think b/c they know that we cant/wont do anything to stop them. the most harsh thing any individual can do is to not vote for somebody b/c of what they've already done in office. but then again, the politicians are good at obscuring what they've done, to the point that it's hard to tell where the politicians stand. and regular working people are too busy to really research and find out who will make what decision. so, how do you change things? we, because we live in a democratic republic, have the "opportunity" to make a difference. how do you sieze that opportunity?

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#51)
    by Sailor on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 10:06:39 AM EST
    one of the biggest techniques in question that is sort of in the gray area is waterboarding.waterboarding is a far less physical technique than it is a mental technique.
    mental torture is also outlawed. One of the reasons I say torture is defined is because the GenCons specify so many stages short of torture that are also illegal. By the time you get to torture, you know it. Excerpts: Article 75
    2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents: (a) Violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular:
    (i) Murder;
    (ii) Torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental;
    ( iii ) Corporal punishment ; and
    (iv) Mutilation;
    (b) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault;
    (c) The taking of hostages;
    (d) Collective punishments; and
    (e) Threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.
    Since those things are outlawed, discussions of the nature of allowed tortures are rendered moot. BTW, for all of you who argued that POW status didn't apply (even tho bush has sasid it does, I'd like to remind you the above Article 75 allies to anyone taken on the battlefield.
    Article 45: Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol. In occupied territory, an such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 of the Fourth Convention, to his rights of communication under that Convention.
    That right there makes secret prisons illegal.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 10:16:01 AM EST
    Torture is anything done to another person that people try to excuse themselves for by claiming that "this is not torture - we don't torture". No one needs to ask what torture is. If you ask, you already know. If you claim you don't know you're lying to yourself, and fooling no one else.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 10:16:01 AM EST
    the point of my last post is to explain a technique that is in the gray area to show yall that there is no line that says on this side is torture and the other is interrogation. and the line should be defined a little better. so the idea is to define torture, really for the first time. it's not necessarily redefining torture. -- peace

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jen M on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 11:40:04 AM EST
    false outrage? small lies. big lies. I can believe nothing you say then?

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#32)
    by Richard Aubrey on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 11:40:04 AM EST
    It was on ABC news. I don't know when it hit first, but I saw it yesterday. The investigative reporter said that even CIA guys who opposed the process said, 1, that it worked, and, 2, named certain plots which had been stopped. It seems silly to argue about whether it works. The Germans made it work. The Communists made it work, including on McCain. Fingers-in-ears may make you feel better, but it doesn't change reality. As to how you avoid false tales and so forth, that is part of the program. It can be done, which we know on account of it has been done. Some moron earlier said this will cause the enemy to bad stuff to our guys. I said that if the enemy did this stuff to our guys, it would be an improvement. That is true. Given a choice, you wouldn't have any difficulty deciding if you wanted sleep deprivation or an acid bath. You know, the Saddaam guys used to make their prisoners drink laundry detergent. That dissolved the mucus that lined the stomach. Then the prisoners were forced to drink bleach. Hours of fun. You'd probably prefer a cold room. Oh, yeah. The reporter, Brian Ross, listed the techniques, and bleach drinking, acid baths, decapitation weren't among them. Now, to the two questions ordinary people will be asking as they roll their eyes at your false outrage: 1. Why can't we do to the prisoners what we do to our own folks in training? Implication--lefties are full of it. 2. Why can't we have a discussion of this issue include the costs of not getting this information? Like dead Americans. You have any objections to putting the costs of not getting the information on the table for this discussion?

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#34)
    by Richard Aubrey on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 11:40:04 AM EST
    Just to emphasize a point I made earlier: That the techniques used are no worse than are done to our guys in training means a couple of things. One is, objectively, there is no problem. Another is, ordinary people aren't going to see a problem. A third is that ordinary people seeing you going on about this are going to look at you as if you're kind of odd. You can tear your lapels and shriek in simulated anguish, but it won't convince anybody. This is not torture. It works. Not using it will impose a cost. Is there a reason not to discuss the cost when deciding what to do?

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#37)
    by Richard Aubrey on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 11:40:04 AM EST
    John Mann. Fair question. It was Brian Ross of ABC who quoted, among others, CIA officers who opposed the process. The problem with your question is if somebody asks how do you really, seriously know if something worse is going on. "I just know," won't get it, nor will foaming about Bushhitler. Nor will quoting, say, Ramsey Clark speaking for the terrorists. If you really want serious, irrefutable information about my or other assertions, you must be prepared to provide the same for differing assertions. As it now stands, the public debate is between the waterboarding or less severe techniques on one side and hysterical accusations lacking a shred of real evidence on the other. The libs have already hammered their own integrity by making naked twister the same as torture. I said, when we were going around on this some months ago, that hauling in non-torture to punch up the numbers has a short-term benefit--until somebody thinks about it--and a long-term cost--when somebody thinks about it. But, anyway, if the CIA did use worse techniques, we're left with the other assertion, which is that it worked. So, for the sake of discussion, let's say they got hold of one of SH's interrogation manuals and tried some of his stuff. It worked. The question still remains: If it works, then not doing it will have a cost. Are we willing to discuss openly whether we want to bear the cost of not using it? So your next question is whether or not it worked in this case, which is probably hard to demonstrate. But the support for it not having worked, absent some serious information leaking, would be the assertion that it never works. And that, as I have said, is utter nonsense and everybody knows better. If it works sometimes, then it might have worked this time. The "it never works" argument fails when somebody finds a single example that it worked. Shouldn't be hard. Most people would think of themselves in that position and decide they'd probably talk. It would be hard for liberals to convince the rest of us that we could resist. All of us. There are caveats, such as saying anything. That's true, but can be addressed, as I have said. Getting the wrong guy would be a tragedy, as would shooting the wrong guy in battle. Anyway, the discussion of whether or not to do this needs to include the cost of not doing it. And claiming there would be no cost is not going to convince many people. Operation Bojinka was burned by one of the bombers setting fire to his kitchen and then being forcefully interrogated by the Filipino cops. It worked. I am not trying to convince you (pl) to admit you know it works. I'm trying to convince you (pl) that everybody knows it works, just as you do, and claiming otherwise won't get you anywhere you want to go.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#39)
    by Richard Aubrey on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 11:40:04 AM EST
    Repack. Messing with the perp (how's he back on the street? have TL for a lawyer?) would gain nothing for anybody. This issue is not about revenge, which I think you know. You are trying to change the subject. The issue here is getting information to save lives. Whether it would work, and whether it is worth it. Your example is not relevant. There are lots of people better than me. And, from time to time, they throw me a Gainesburger, so I won't be someplace else when they need me. Big deal.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 11:45:19 AM EST
    RePack - And your comments explain why. I'm kinda like Bush. I may use'em wrong, but if you read, then you can't misunderstand.
    The facts are that you called throwing a book into a toliet torture. How drool.(to speak nonsense) How definitive of the condition of the Left at the start of the 21st century
    I note that Dick - Would I be happy? Of course not. And I would probably be bringing a tort against the Gov. But the question was, what I would tell him? You have my answer. BTW - He had a court hearing. The lawyer he wanted didn't show up and the Canadians threw him to the wolves. Sad, bad. But life is not fair. Sailor - Well I guess making them stay up past tuck-in time is a no-no.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#53)
    by Sailor on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:35:41 PM EST
    He had a court hearing. The lawyer he wanted didn't show up and the Canadians threw him to the wolves.
    ppj, you were proved lying on the other thread about Arar, why do persist in it here? back OT, once again ppj endorses torture and other violations of the GenCons.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#54)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:41:16 PM EST
    Sailor, That's probably one of the best comments that sums up the entire argument. You've got PPJ curled up in the fetal position talking baby talk.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:57:59 PM EST
    Sailor - Why do you continue to make false claims? I was correct about Arar. You just refuse to believe what the Canadian government says. Why is that Sailor? Do you believe they are lying? If so, why don't you attack them. And speaking of lying, I wonder if Al is still claiming that Arar was arrested at the US/Canadian border. Che - Neither you or Sailor can make a clear statement defining torture, so you just claim everything is. That is nonsense. Again. I ask a simple question and you guys hide behind insults.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#57)
    by Sailor on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 01:57:33 PM EST
    jim, everything you lined to refuted you, roy posted direct quotes from the commission's findings that refuted you, you are just a sick loss to humainty and an example of why the world is so f@@ked up.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#58)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 02:15:02 PM EST
    Jim, Che - Neither you or Sailor can make a clear statement defining torture... We don't need to. The Geneva Conventions do it for us. You just choose to ignore that fact, which is in violation of the law.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#59)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 02:23:26 PM EST
    And your comments explain why.
    [I am no longer working as a magazine editor.] Sorry, Jim I can't let this bull$hit insult pass. I don't normally discuss my personal history here, because it is unrelated to the ideas I express, but your suggestion that I am somehow incompetent is crap. The reason I no longer work as a magazine editor is that I do not care to work for other people, and I left my own magazine nearly 20 years ago after a business dispute with my former partner. I own my company, the fourth startup of my working life, and as you know I move pianos. This job pays better than magazine editing, it is a swaggering gig of the sort I enjoy, and I like making all the decisions. One of the companies I started, in 1979, was called simply MountainBikes, and my partner Gary Fisher and I introduced a new concept in bicycles, which has swept the world and generated billions of dollars. We changed modern culture to the point where we can go to any city in the world and see the results of the idea we had nearly 30 years ago. The sport we invented from scratch is now in the Olympics, and the international rules are the ones I wrote in 1983. Hardly anyone gets to change the world, and most who do, do not improve it, but we did. Compared to me you have never accomplished a damn thing in your life and you can kiss my a$$.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#56)
    by Jen M on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 02:58:09 PM EST
    how many people who think throwing a book in a toilet is no big deal would think the same if someone burned (a particular) piece of colored cloth?

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 02:58:09 PM EST
    The heuristic that torture as something you wouldn't want done to your child is eaiser to understand and apply if you assume that the child was caught in the same circumstances as real prisoner. E.g. Generally, I would not want my child to be locked in a military prison for a well defined period of time, but if they were captured in combat or a chaotic war zone, I could accept it. Whereas I would not want my child chained hand to foot to floor in that prison whether they were captured in combat or not. The latter is torture; the former is not.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 07:31:21 PM EST
    Nowonmai - The attack is often in the eyes of the beholder, and of course no one is required to read anything by anyone. Evidently you haven't read my comments too closely, either in this thread, or others. I have never said that torture is acceptable. My point re torture remains. If you can't define it you can't control it and by making dumb statements about it you provide cover for those who would torture. RePack - I am pleased to know that you found employment that you enjoy. And your point is? I pricked your ego? Go back and read some of the insults you made and come back and see me. Until then, please don't talk sexy and get everyone excited. ;-) Che - One More Time. The current GC's do a lousy job of defining torture. All I have asked for is a definition. That you consider any thing that presures the terrorist to be torture is obvious. That's okay. It's dumb, but understandable. Why not just say it? BTW - This isn't a new position with me.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 07:38:09 PM EST
    This is all great stuff; really, it is. Can't wait to watch it all on TV once the war crimes trials get underway.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#62)
    by Richard Aubrey on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 08:28:18 PM EST
    TL's spamblocker seems a bit too enthusiastic, so here goes nothing, again. It appears that the assertion that torture never works has been abandoned. I'll take that as agreeing that it can work effectively in some circumstances. The question still remains, do we use it? Since it works, not using it would impose a cost on the nation, likely in terms of dead Americans. Is there any problem with putting the likely cost on the table when discussing the case for or against using torture? Seems the honest thing to do. Slightly different: We're still at the point where the CIA guys are reported to be doing nothing worse than our own guys suffer in training. "Too bad for terrorists, but okay for our trainees." That's a motto the republicans would pay the democrats to take up. But y'all go ahead.

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 07:51:45 AM EST
    Dark Avenger - If you can read further up than the last comment, you may discover that it was the RePack guy who first decided to criticize, thus casting the first stone. So, do you have anything to say about the subject of the thread? No? I didn't think so. So what you have done is make a personal attack based on a incorrect premise because you didn't resarch, and after no comments on the subject, accuse me of attacking. Nothing knew here, eh?

    Re: Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror S (none / 0) (#67)
    by Sailor on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 08:30:32 AM EST
    Nothing knew here, eh?
    For once he speaks the truth, even if he got the tense wrong. Since humiliation and outrages against personal dignity are outlawed, saying that one can't define torture is a specious argument only designed to distract from intelligent discourse. BTW, RA, we weren't agreeing with you, we were ignoring you hoping you'd go away.

    Bill Clinton Argues Against Torturing Terror Suspects | 64 comments (64 topical)