Courtesy of that notorious gang of right-wing hacks at MSNBC and the New York Times:

"Intel chief: Harsh techniques brought good info"

<link>

Curious how any mention of the good wrought by using the EIT's was omitted when Obama released the information last week.

Let's assume for a second that we can take these individuals at their word (a major assumption, I know). So what if the torture brought "good info." That doesn't make it right. Nor does it preclude the fact that the same (or even better) information could have been acquired via alternative methods.

I can go rob a bank today and it might make me rich. That doesn't make robbing the bank any less of a crime, now does it?

If I had to choose between listening to Hayden and Blair or listening to Noah, who once went on a rant about how the iced coffee drinks at Dairy Queen were racist, I'm inclined to go with the intelligence guys.

You know, I've heard people say that there were other ways we could have gotten the information from the fellows, but I've never heard anyone describe these humane methods for obtaining information from people who think they'll go to heaven if they slaughter us. Would you care to enlighten us all?

Your analogy is, unsurprisingly, fallacious. There are laws against robbing banks. What laws were violated with regard to these prisoners? They don't fall into any of the categories of protected prisoners outlined by the Geneva Convention, and they aren't citizens of the United States, so they aren't entitled to the protections of the Constitution (and before you mention the Courts cases where they were erroneously and unconstitutionally granted rights, I would remind you that the bulk of the incidents in question occurred before said cases were decided).

Where do you get the funny idea that the Constitution only applies to citizens?

You know, I've heard people say that there were other ways we could have gotten the information from the fellows, but I've never heard anyone describe these humane methods for obtaining information from people who think they'll go to heaven if they slaughter us

There's been entire books written on the subject. For example, How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators who used brains, not brutality, to take down the deadliest man in Iraq

What laws were violated with regard to these prisoners?

Are you joking? Torture is illegal. That's why the Obama administration went to pains to say that those that acted in good faith wouldn't be prosecuted. That is why others may still be prosecuted. Torture is illegal, period, no matter who it is against.

UN Convention on Torture (sorry, the U.S. is a signatory on this document. And the U.S. was in multiple violations thereof.

U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 113C

U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 118

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Please try again, but actually use some facts this time to back up your argument.

Gee, torture is illegal. Thanks for clearing that up.

In the UN Convention, "torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Define severe. Because I read the memos and what they described doesn't sound severe to me (and I'm a guy who has phobias about bugs and drowning).

As for the U.S. Code you provided, with regard to jurisdiction. Who is protected?

(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

Neither Americans nor within the United States. Therefore, not covered.

And as for Hamdan, two things:
One, check the year: 2006. After the events we're talking about, therefore, not really a good argument.

Two, the Court decision was wrong. The Geneva convention does not apply to people such as Hamdan--I've read it, and closest you get to the situation of people like Hamdan are the descriptions of spies and mercenaries. Problem is, the Geneva Convention explicitly states that spies and mercenaries are NOT protected. In addition, the Court chose to ignore the plain language of the Constitution in that Congress removed the appellate jurisdiction of the Court in this matter, in accordance with the power granted it by Article III of the Constitution (the Exceptions Clause).

The fact that Stevens wrote the decision is not surprising; he has a long history of deciding that his interpretation is paramount, even if piffling things such as established facts or the written law contradicts him (see, for example, Kelo v. City of New London (2006), Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)).

fenngibbon, torture is wrong, unproductive and illegal. take your pick but your flimsy arguments don't negate the fact that humans should not be tortured and if Hamden was resisting what may in the middle east see as an occupation of their territory then he is neither a mercenary nor a spy..

After World War II, the U.S. prosecuted the Japanese for war crimes, including waterboarding.

Are you arguing that the Japanese that were prosecuted for waterboarding U.S. soldiers shouldn't have been prosecuted on grounds of torture and war crimes?

Two, the Court decision was wrong. The Geneva convention does not apply to people such as Hamdan--I've read it, and closest you get to the situation of people like Hamdan are the descriptions of spies and mercenaries. Problem is, the Geneva Convention explicitly states that spies and mercenaries are NOT protected. In addition, the Court chose to ignore the plain language of the Constitution in that Congress removed the appellate jurisdiction of the Court in this matter, in accordance with the power granted it by Article III of the Constitution (the Exceptions Clause).

Your basing part of your argument about legality on your opinion that the Supreme Court was wrong? Really?

I mean, there's a lot of Supreme Court decisions I personally disagree with, but I've never tried to argue that my opinion is of more legal weight than theirs.

soxforthewin:

Your basing part of your argument about legality on your opinion that the Supreme Court was wrong? Really?

I mean, there's a lot of Supreme Court decisions I personally disagree with, but I've never tried to argue that my opinion is of more legal weight than theirs.

Yes, really. Just because they wear robes and work in a temple doesn't make justices the Elect of the Gods, and I have the right to criticize their decisions, especially when they're so visibly at odds with the plain language of the law and Constitution. Look at Article III; is there an exception to the Exceptions Clause? No. Likewise, read the Geneva Convention. Are terrorists granted protection by it? No.

Challenging bad court decisions is how you get bad court decisions overturned.

spruce:

After World War II, the U.S. prosecuted the Japanese for war crimes, including waterboarding.

Are you arguing that the Japanese that were prosecuted for waterboarding U.S. soldiers shouldn't have been prosecuted on grounds of torture and war crimes?

Who did they waterboard? Illegal non-state combatants? Or U.S. and Allied soldiers? There's a difference, and that difference matters.

maxpractical:

fenngibbon, torture is wrong, unproductive and illegal. take your pick but your flimsy arguments don't negate the fact that humans should not be tortured and if Hamden was resisting what may in the middle east see as an occupation of their territory then he is neither a mercenary nor a spy..

And you're not paying attention. What was done wasn't torture (and if it wasn't torture it wasn't illegal), and, according to intelligence officials, it was not unproductive.

Hamdan, if I recall correctly, was a Yemeni, which is on the south end of the Arabian penninsula picked up in Afghanistan, which is in central Asia. Yemenis and Afghans don't even speak the same language. How the hell was he defending his territory?

No, the difference DOESN'T matter. International law is clear in that regard.

Once again, these apologies for war crimes are unbelievable.

fenngibbon, is that you again on physical torture? Exactly what does good info mean? More than likely, they got "some" information that vetted information they already had, which is generally the case.

Secondly, Admiral Blair, no light weight, also indicates, in part, although information was obtained, its value did not outweigh the harm to the U.S.s image abroad and perhaps this information could have been gotten using other methods.

Scared people turned to extreme measures to make-up for a massive intelligence failure pre-9/11, letting their minds run wild with worse case scenarios - understandable considering the gaps in intelligence on al-Qaeda, and the president's concern with protecting the nation's security.

The problem was the dumb shits didn't know when to stop once a complete picture was put together on al-Qeada's capabilities, and intentions, mostly received from foreign ME and Islamic intelligence services.

The case of the Japanese soldier convicted and sentenced for waterboarding involved more than waterboarding.

<link>


And apparently the way he conducted waterboarding was different from the way Americans did at Gitmo.

And AGAIN, there IS a difference in who the prisoner and it DOES matter. The Geneva convention does NOT, I repeat (for the thickheaded lackwits who infest these boards) NOT protect every prisoner.