Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

Border Reiver said:
This is false. The Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War requires that accused unlawful combatants be tried by a military court of the capturing power, or a civil court of the country in which they are captured and that they be treated in accordance with either the laws of the country in which they are captured, or IAW the laws of the Capturing Power. If convicted, they are either treated as PWs (if found to be lawful combatants), or as civilian prisoners in the Detaining Power.
Click to expand...

Even if what you say is correct, which it is not, it still wouldn't contradict anything I wrote. Here are a few points to show that you are not even correct in what you claim: (1) The Geneva Conventions are essentially multilateral contracts which apply only to armed conflicts between two or more nation states which have signed them; (2) terrorist groups are neither nation states nor regularized armed forces within a nation state, and they have neither agreed to the Geneva Conventions nor have they shown even an iota of interest in obeying either the spirit or the letter of them; in short, they are not parties to the Geneva "contracts"; and (3) even under the Geneva Conventions (the 3rd one specifically), combatants can be determined to be unlawful under a 4-part test by a "competent tribunal" if there is any doubt about their status; there are no details concerning how that tribunal be organized or run, and even a series of interviews and evaluations by authorized intelligence officials may suffice.

Being an unlawful combatant is NOT a license to be tortured or mistreated.
Click to expand...

It is not a license to be tortured because of the Convention Against Torture, which stands separate from the Geneva Conventions. It is a license to be mistreated, however, in ways which fall short of torture. You can be subjected to lengthy interrogations, and you can be tried and punished by a military tribunal, up to and including execution.
 
Frozenwolf150 said:
So it's okay to do horrible things to people whom you feel are of lower moral standing?

So you'd be okay with slavery and genocide if they hurt fewer people and the victims had the option of being cooperative and minimizing the hurt?
Click to expand...

I'm not generally a fan of the "Law of So," but for such an egregious application of straw, I'm going to have to invoke it to save time.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
I typically don't make appeals to the Founding Fathers (or post three times in a row :p), but I know that conservatives tend to revere their opinions, so...




So, logger... sunmaster14... What changed? What happened in the past two centuries that made it acceptable for America to break with the values and principles that were a part of its very fight for existence? Are we somehow under a significantly greater threat from radical Islam than we were during our fight for independence?

Or have we just gotten ethically lazy?
Click to expand...

Well, I generally don't make appeals to the Founding Fathers either. I can think for myself, thank you very much, and I suspect I have thought more deeply on these issues than George Washington ever did (he was regarded as a bit of a dim bulb by his peers, by the way), and with the benefit of 230 more years of advances in philosophy to draw on as well. More importantly, however, it's a nice talking point for the leader of a new nation. He knew how to talk the talk, or at least the historians knew how to cherrypick tidbits from his speeches and writings to create a positive image. How he "talked," however, has little to do with how he might have "walked" in any particular situation.

I'll note also that taking the ethical high ground against the British has historically been a sound military strategy, since they are susceptible to moral appeals. Gandhi did the same thing during the struggle for India's independence. What works against the Brits does not necessarily work against Islamic jihadists, however.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Even if what you say is correct, which it is not, it still wouldn't contradict anything I wrote. Here are a few points to show that you are not even correct in what you claim: (1) The Geneva Conventions are essentially multilateral contracts which apply only to armed conflicts between two or more nation states which have signed them; (2) terrorist groups are neither nation states nor regularized armed forces within a nation state, and they have neither agreed to the Geneva Conventions nor have they shown even an iota of interest in obeying either the spirit or the letter of them; in short, they are not parties to the Geneva "contracts"; and (3) even under the Geneva Conventions (the 3rd one specifically), combatants can be determined to be unlawful under a 4-part test by a "competent tribunal" if there is any doubt about their status; there are no details concerning how that tribunal be organized or run, and even a series of interviews and evaluations by authorized intelligence officials may suffice.
Click to expand...

The Laws of Armed Conflict are considered to be a part of the common international law and apply to all conflicts, not just those between signatory states.

This is why various Balkan Warlords from the 90s have been indicted for war crimes - even though the states that they represented or the component parts of such states were not signatory to the Conventions


It is not a license to be tortured because of the Convention Against Torture, which stands separate from the Geneva Conventions. It is a license to be mistreated, however, in ways which fall short of torture. You can be subjected to lengthy interrogations, and you can be tried and punished by a military tribunal, up to and including execution.
Click to expand...

Given that unlawful combatants are to be treated as civil prisoners of the Detaining Power, this would preclude mistreatment . Interogations and suffering judicial punishment AFTER a finding of guilt are generally not considered mistreatment.
 
logger said:
Funny, I don't remember reading about the enemy cutting off heads.
Click to expand...


Why do you think beheading is such a massive threat to the U.S. that you believe it acceptable to throw away principles that were a part of our nation's very fight for existence?

Also, your comment above appears to be an argument for torture as a means for revenge, not information gathering. That's pathetic.
 
sunmaster14 said:
...I suspect I have thought more deeply on these issues than George Washington ever did (he was regarded as a bit of a dim bulb by his peers, by the way)...
Click to expand...


There's nothing about the rejection or advocacy of torture that requires deep thought. It only requires a sense of humanity, or lack thereof.
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
Well, I generally don't make appeals to the Founding Fathers either. I can think for myself, thank you very much, and I suspect I have thought more deeply on these issues than George Washington ever did (he was regarded as a bit of a dim bulb by his peers, by the way), and with the benefit of 230 more years of advances in philosophy to draw on as well. More importantly, however, it's a nice talking point for the leader of a new nation. He knew how to talk the talk, or at least the historians knew how to cherrypick tidbits from his speeches and writings to create a positive image. How he "talked," however, has little to do with how he might have "walked" in any particular situation.

I'll note also that taking the ethical high ground against the British has historically been a sound military strategy, since they are susceptible to moral appeals. Gandhi did the same thing during the struggle for India's independence. What works against the Brits does not necessarily work against Islamic jihadists, however.
Click to expand...

230 more years of philosophy takes us back to the middle ages?
 
sunmaster14 said:
I don't want to belabor the point, since it is rather a subtle one and not central to my argument at all, but the fact is there is at all times agency on the part of the terrorist, even the captive one. He should know that by becoming an unlawful combatant, he will be denied certain rights to due process and to prisoner of war status. He will be treated as the lowest criminal imaginable. Perhaps he has reasonable expectation not to be tortured, but in principle he won't be unless he has valuable information which can be used to save innocent lives, and only then if he refuses to divulge it. By withholding the life-saving information, he is making a voluntary choice. This does not, by itself, justify his torture. Only the need to extract valuable information which saves innocent lives can do that. But he does retain the power to end his torment, something that historically our prisoners of war were not granted by their tormentors (e.g. in Vietnam, Korea, or Japan).
Click to expand...

You call them unlawful combatants, and they call your whole war unlawful.

There is at all times agency on the part of the soldier, even the captive one. We know that because "I was just following orders" is not a valid defense.

He should know that by joining an unlawful war, he will be denied certain rights to due process and to prisoner of war status. He will be treated as the lowest criminal imaginable. Etcetera and such.

That you don't see what you're doing is nearly unbelievable.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I can think for myself, thank you very much, and I suspect I have thought more deeply on these issues than George Washington ever did (he was regarded as a bit of a dim bulb by his peers, by the way),
Click to expand...
For this to become a compelling argument, you'd have to provide evidence that you have thought about these issues more deeply than George Washington ever did (and that your peers do not regard you as a bit of a dim bulb).

Washington's peers included Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. Washington's peers chose Washington as commander of the Continental Army, president of the convention that drafted the US Constitution, and first President of the United States.

When a pseudonymous argument implicitly asks readers to believe the pseudonymous arguer's peers think more highly of him than Washington's peers thought of Washington, then the pseudonymous argument is toast.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Washington's peers included Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. Washington's peers chose Washington as commander of the Continental Army, president of the convention that drafted the US Constitution, and first President of the United States.

.
Click to expand...

Instead of evidence, how about a little common sense. I doubt the military will be looking back 239 years on us for war fighting strategy.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I'm not generally a fan of the "Law of So," but for such an egregious application of straw, I'm going to have to invoke it to save time.
Click to expand...

Well then, let's see if the same arguments you're using to support one atrocity can work in favor of the examples of atrocities others have brought up, shall we?

Rape should be justified as long as it's done to the right people, for the right reasons, the right way. For centuries, rape of prisoners of war was widely used, and considered an acceptable way to demoralize and humiliate the defeated enemy. Inmates in modern day prisons are often sexually assaulted without any repercussions, and in fact, law enforcement officers have been known to threaten suspects with prison rape in order to get them to cooperate. Several of the enhanced interrogation methods the CIA used on terror suspects in the report qualify as sexual assault, unless you consider sodomy and rectal rehydration to be benign.

Therefore rape is considered by some to be acceptable, depending on who it's done to. Rape can be used to get information out of prisoners. All they have to do is cooperate and comply to get it to stop. Besides, we live in a post-9/11 world, and any treatment incrementally less than what the terrorists did to us on 9/11 doesn't count as torture.

Slavery should be justified as long as it's done to the right people, for the right reasons, the right way. For centuries, enslavement of prisoners of war was commonplace and expected. Certain civilizations, like the Romans, used enslavement to punish crimes and debts. The Founding Fathers all owned slaves, so slavery can't be all that bad. As long as those doing the enslaving are well-trained and responsible, and do not take it to the worst extremes, there's no reason to think the prisoners are going to be mistreated.

Slaves had a way out, they could always pay off their debts and buy their freedom. Slaves also have a choice whether or not to cooperate, so it's their fault if they get beaten and whipped. Besides, we live in a post-9/11 world, and any treatment incrementally less than what the terrorists did to us on 9/11 doesn't count as torture.

Eugenics should be justified as long as it's done to the right people, for the right reasons, the right way. We do it to animals, and it has served our civilization pretty well, so why not do it to human beings? It would help us control overpopulation, eliminate diseases, and make humans better and stronger. As long as those in charge of the eugenics program are well-trained and responsible, and do not take it to the worst extremes, there's no reason to think the subjects are going to be mistreated.

The people will have an option to cooperate, by complying with the program and breeding or not breeding when they are told, and by subjecting themselves to genetic experimentation when they are told. Besides, we live in a post-9/11 world, and 9/11 justifies everything, because reasons.

All of these things work. That's my assertion. Now prove they don't.
 
logger said:
Instead of evidence, how about a little common sense. I doubt the military will be looking back 239 years on us for war fighting strategy.
Click to expand...

Not a fan of evidence I see?

By the way, an appeal to common sense is little more than an appeal to popular opinion.
 
logger said:
Instead of evidence, how about a little common sense. I doubt the military will be looking back 239 years on us for war fighting strategy.
Click to expand...

Why not, it was a winning one?

Weapons may have changed but war hasn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom