Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Standing Up For Torture; Why?
Topic Started: Oct 16 2005, 08:33 AM (511 Views)
Colo_Crawdad
Member Avatar
Lowell
By Ed Quillen

Will everyone who's in favor of torture please stand up?

I don't see anybody.

No, wait, there's our own Sen. Wayne Allard, and he's standing next to President George W. Bush. And now there are eight other senators standing in support of torture.

Why would anybody but a sadistic thug take that stand?

On Oct. 5, the U.S. Senate considered a bill to fund American military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. John McCain, a Republican senator from Arizona, is someone who can speak with moral authority about torture during military operations - he spent five and a half extremely unpleasant years in the custody of the North Vietnamese.

McCain attached an amendment to the defense appropriation bill. It stated that our tax money could not be spent for "torture, and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Its other provision required all American military personnel to follow the Army's Field Manual on Interrogations.

That should be about as controversial as apple pie.

But when McCain tried to attach that amendment last summer, Vice President ***"Attention Member: The word or phrase you have chosen is not allowed on this forum, please choose something more appropriate. Thank you, Admin."*** Cheney pressured Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to pull the bill from the floor, thus blocking the amendment. This time around, Frist backed the amendment, which also had the support of Sen. John Warner, the Virginia Republican who chairs the Armed Services Committee.

Among those speaking in support of the anti-torture amendment were Colin Powell, former secretary of state and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "I also believe the world will note that America is making a clear statement with respect to the expected future behavior of our soldiers," he said. "Such a reaction will help deal with the terrible public diplomacy crisis created by Abu Ghraib."

Joining Powell in opposition to torture were 28 other senior retired military officers, including Gen. John Shalikashvili, another former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

So this isn't exactly a collection of lily-livered wimps who stand opposed to the use of torture by the U.S. military. As McCain put it, "All of this seems to be common sense, in accordance with longstanding American values."

But President Bush has threatened to veto the bill, assuming the anti-torture amendment survives a House-Senate conference

committee. His press secretary, Scott McClellan, said the veto would come because the bill "would limit the president's ability as commander-in-chief to carry out the war on terrorism."
Indeed it might. Various treaties concerning germ warfare also limit his ability, and every so often, despite his best efforts to ignore it, the Bill of Rights limits his powers. There's another constitutional limitation - Article I, Section 8, gives Congress, not the president, the power to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces," and to "make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."

Wayne Allard, a Republican and Colorado's senior senator, voted in favor of torture. All the bill would do, he said, "is tie the hands of the Department of Defense at a time when maximum flexibility within the boundaries of U.S. law is needed."

The rationale for such flexibility? The one I hear most is that al-Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents are extremely vile, what with kidnappings, beheadings and worse.

But our government is not responsible for their behavior. It is responsible for how our own forces behave. In other words, this isn't about what kind of people they are. It's about what kind of people we are.

In the 2000 campaign, candidate George W. Bush said his favorite philosopher was Jesus. The Jesus I learned about in Sunday School spoke of "turning the other cheek," "forgiving seventy times seven" and "doing unto others that which you would have them do unto you."

Perhaps Bush, who wants to be able to order humans to torture other humans, has some other Jesus in mind.
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
"Why would anybody but a sadistic thug take that stand?" pretty much poisons the well of discussion, doesn't it?

I would agree, generally, that "torture, and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" should not be the nation's policy, for as Powell likely points out it's be returned in kind on our soldiers. But I'm not sure an absolute like that applies to soldiers fighting for their lives and ours in battle.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colo_Crawdad
Member Avatar
Lowell
Perhaps the real question is why would only eight Senators take that stand? Better yet, why would any Senator or President object to a reaffirmation of a basic principle upon which this nation has stood for so many years.
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
corky52
Member
Ethics only when it doesn't get in the way of what you want? Not all humans are created equal, if you don't go to the right church you're less human. Expediency over the rule of law?

What ever happened to the "Golden Rule"?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Exactly what Powell argues, the "Golden Rule".

Does it apply in battle?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
corky52
Member
Battle is not what we are talking about here. What you can expect after a fight impacts how you fight and what you do, people in a box have no hope and no alternatives except choosing how they die. War is more than battles, how you fight is as important as why you fight.

Individuals may stray but the law has to be clear and without loopholes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Well, if we're not looking at the entire picture, but only an isolated part of it, I'll step out of the discussion.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
corky52
Member
Chris,

Torture is impractical in the heat of battle, and once a man is a prisoner the battle is over is it not? The question is universal, but it's not about battle.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
To answer the question, you have to define what is torture and what is not.

Some things, like bamboo under the fingernails or beating with a hose, or hanging a person by his thumbs, etc are obviously over the line.

a woman leading a man (naked) around on a leash is a humiliating action, but not what I would call torture. An american man under such conditions could handle this just fine, but a real macho man would reallllly hate it.
Pig blood..is it okay to use? It doesn't hurt the person physically and washes off.

Sleep deprivation seems ok to me
Sensory deprivation, too.

Also, there has to be a good reason for using such actions...
For gathering information, yes. For fun, no.

And, if an army is going to anything like this, they need to have professionals doing it, not the ordinary soldier.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eb belote
Member
think awhile back a lite bird was up on charges he threatened to shot a prisoner if he didnt give info. the prisoner did at no loss of life - ambush-. he got out an put out. first thang troops got to no is bein taken prisoner is not a option
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
corky52
Member
eb,

You really want the Bushido Code for our troops?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
roscoe
Member
" War is hell " If a loved one was being held by a nut case and only he had the key to their surival how far would you go to save your loved one.

These folks think nothing of making themselves bombs and care less who the kill. They want, whoever they are, us including me dead.

Eb is right. Sticking a gun to a terrorists head to gain info ain't all that bad.Probably saved a lot of lives.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
corky52
Member
Lowest common denominator, well it will save on war crimes trials after the fact.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eb belote
Member
corky52 is it your thinkin that hamas al kada hezbalah etc play by a set of geneva convention rules. they have already executed a marine that was a pow.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
corky52
Member
Eb,
Just because the enemy is barbaric do we also have to become barbarians as well? What is it that separates us from them? Swift and sure punishment of those guilty of war crimes in a legal way after the war would seem to be the best answer to me. What I find very interesting is the lack of interest in the Iraqis that executed our troops in the Jessica incident, seems they are being protected by somebody just south of Iraq. Hell of a message to send, Desert Arabs can get away with murder?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply