Please note that when McCain refers to "liberal values" he's not talking
about the 20th century American political tendency, but rather the 18th and
19th century belief in the perfectibility of man suggested by "liberal arts"
in education. - Hugh
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Meissner [mailto:JPMeissn@lasclev.org]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 3:22 PM
To: JPMeissn.PO_CLEVE.CLEVELAND@lasclev.org
Subject: PSYOP FPI # 840: McCain on Torture
** PRIVATE **
PSYOP FPI # 840: McCain on Torture
In Europe, during WW II, the original FrontPost was a weekly,
semi-tactical journal, printed in the field by enterprising PSYOP Soldiers
belonging to the 12th Army Group.
Fighter-bombers, medium bombers and leaflet shells disseminated the
journals. Frequently, this publication was the only news about the war
received by the German Soldier. We salute the skillful PSYOPers of the past
by naming our PSYOP EMAIL Letters - FRONTPOST.
TO: All Interested in PSYOP
FROM: Joseph Meissner (LTC- RET), Editor,
Perspectives Journal, PSYOP Association
DATE: 14 November 2005
PSYOP FPI # 840: McCain on Torture
1. The following are the views of Sen John McCain on why we should not
torture prisoners to get information. He knows about this from his personal
experiences in a North Vietnamese hell-hole.
2. Obviously this has all sorts of PSYOP implications. If the enemy thinks
they will be tortured, not too many will surrender or "rally" despite all of
our PSYOP broadcasts. More importantly, this affects how we are perceived
by not only the enemy, but also by neutral and even friendly audiences.
Most importantly, who are we? What do we stand for? Sen McCain spells this
out so well.
3. Only one minor criticism from FRONTPOST. The Senator says he does not
mourn the loss of the life of one terrorist. We know what he means.
Furthermore, terrorists do terrible deeds, not only to their military
enemies, but to ordinary people including children. But there is a sense in
which even the lives of the terrorists mean something. We need to reach
them with a PSYOP message that doing terrorist deeds is a terrible way to
waste one's life, that terrorist deeds are contrary to every religious
ideal, and that there are better ways--humane ways--peaceful ways-- for a
"terrorist" to pursue their cause.
4. McCain's Article deserves to be posted "on our wall" both to remind us
of how we should behave and of what we are fighting for.
NEWSWEEK ON AIR
Torture: Inside the Debate
By Sen. John McCain
Newsweek
Nov. 21, 2005 issue - The debate over the treatment of enemy prisoners, like
so much of the increasingly overcharged partisan debate over the war in Iraq
and the global war against terrorists, has occasioned many unserious and
unfair charges about the administration's intentions and motives. With all
the many competing demands for their attention, President Bush and Vice
President Cheney have remained admirably tenacious in their determination to
prevent terrorists from inflicting another atrocity on the American people,
whom they are sworn to protect. It is certainly fair to credit their
administration's vigilance as a substantial part of the reason that we have
not experienced another terrorist attack on American soil since September
11, 2001.
It is also quite fair to attribute the administration's position?that U.S.
interrogators be allowed latitude in their treatment of enemy prisoners that
might offend American values?to the president's and vice president's
appropriate concern for acquiring actionable intelligence that could prevent
attacks on our soldiers or our allies or on the American people. And it is
quite unfair to assume some nefarious purpose informs their intentions. They
bear the greatest responsibility for the security of American lives and
interests. I understand and respect their motives just as I admire the
seriousness and patriotism of their resolve. But I do, respectfully, take
issue with the position that the demands of this war require us to accord a
lower station to the moral imperatives that should govern our conduct in war
and peace when they come in conflict with the unyielding inhumanity of our
vicious enemy.
Obviously, to defeat our enemies we need intelligence, but intelligence that
is reliable. We should not torture or treat inhumanely terrorists we have
captured. The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my
experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under
torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to
hear?whether it is true or false?if he believes it will relieve his
suffering. I was once physically coerced to provide my enemies with the
names of the members of my flight squadron, information that had little if
any value to my enemies as actionable intelligence. But I did not refuse, or
repeat my insistence that I was required under the Geneva Conventions to
provide my captors only with my name, rank and serial number. Instead, I
gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that
providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse. It
seems probable to me that the terrorists we interrogate under less than
humane standards of treatment are also likely to resort to deceptive answers
that are perhaps less provably false than that which I once offered.
Our commitment to basic humanitarian values affects?in part?the willingness
of other nations to do the same. Mistreatment of enemy prisoners endangers
our own troops who might someday be held captive. While some enemies, and Al
Qaeda surely, will never be bound by the principle of reciprocity, we should
have concern for those Americans captured by more traditional enemies, if
not in this war then in the next. Until about 1970, North Vietnam ignored
its obligations not to mistreat the Americans they held prisoner, claiming
that we were engaged in an unlawful war against them and thus not entitled
to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. But when their abuses became
widely known and incited unfavorable international attention, they
substantially decreased their mistreatment of us. Again, Al Qaeda will never
be influenced by international sensibilities or open to moral suasion. If
ever the term "sociopath" applied to anyone, it applies to them. But I doubt
they will be the last enemy America will fight, and we should not undermine
today our defense of international prohibitions against torture and inhumane
treatment of prisoners of war that we will need to rely on in the future.
To prevail in this war we need more than victories on the battlefield. This
is a war of ideas, a struggle to advance freedom in the face of terror in
places where oppressive rule has bred the malevolence that creates
terrorists. Prisoner abuses exact a terrible toll on us in this war of
ideas. They inevitably become public, and when they do they threaten our
moral standing, and expose us to false but widely disseminated charges that
democracies are no more inherently idealistic and moral than other regimes.
This is an existential fight, to be sure. If they could, Islamic extremists
who resort to terror would destroy us utterly. But to defeat them we must
prevail in our defense of American political values as well. The
mistreatment of prisoners greatly injures that effort.
The mistreatment of prisoners harms us more than our enemies. I don't think
I'm naive about how terrible are the wages of war, and how terrible are the
things that must be done to wage it successfully. It is an awful business,
and no matter how noble the cause for which it is fought, no matter how
valiant their service, many veterans spend much of their subsequent lives
trying to forget not only what was done to them, but some of what had to be
done by them to prevail.
I don't mourn the loss of any terrorist's life. Nor do I care if in the
course of serving their ignoble cause they suffer great harm. They have
pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and
they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next. What I
do mourn is what we lose when by official policy or official neglect we
allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget that best sense of
ourselves, that which is our greatest strength?that we are different and
better than our enemies, that we fight for an idea, not a tribe, not a land,
not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion, but for an
idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with
inalienable rights.
Now, in this war, our liberal notions are put to the test. Americans of good
will, all patriots, argue about what is appropriate and necessary to combat
this unconventional enemy. Those of us who feel that in this war, as in past
wars, Americans should not compromise our values must answer those Americans
who believe that a less rigorous application of those values is regrettably
necessary to prevail over a uniquely abhorrent and dangerous enemy. Part of
our disagreement is definitional. Some view more coercive interrogation
tactics as something short of torture but worry that they might be subject
to challenge under the "no cruel, inhumane or degrading" standard. Others,
including me, believe that both the prohibition on torture and the cruel,
inhumane and degrading standard must remain intact. When we relax that
standard, it is nearly unavoidable that some objectionable practices will be
allowed as something less than torture because they do not risk life and
limb or do not cause very serious physical pain.
For instance, there has been considerable press attention to a tactic called
"waterboarding," where a prisoner is restrained and blindfolded while an
interrogator pours water on his face and into his mouth?causing the prisoner
to believe he is being drowned. He isn't, of course; there is no intention
to injure him physically. But if you gave people who have suffered abuse as
prisoners a choice between a beating and a mock execution, many, including
me, would choose a beating. The effects of most beatings heal. The memory of
an execution will haunt someone for a very long time and damage his or her
psyche in ways that may never heal. In my view, to make someone believe that
you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his
head and firing a blank. I believe that it is torture, very exquisite
torture.
Those who argue the necessity of some abuses raise an important dilemma as
their most compelling rationale: the ticking-time-bomb scenario. What do we
do if we capture a terrorist who we have sound reasons to believe possesses
specific knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack?
In such an urgent and rare instance, an interrogator might well try extreme
measures to extract information that could save lives. Should he do so, and
thereby save an American city or prevent another 9/11, authorities and the
public would surely take this into account when judging his actions and
recognize the extremely dire situation which he confronted. But I don't
believe this scenario requires us to write into law an exception to our
treaty and moral obligations that would permit cruel, inhumane and degrading
treatment. To carve out legal exemptions to this basic principle of human
rights risks opening the door to abuse as a matter of course, rather than a
standard violated truly in extremis. It is far better to embrace a standard
that might be violated in extraordinary circumstances than to lower our
standards to accommodate a remote contingency, confusing personnel in the
field and sending precisely the wrong message abroad about America's
purposes and practices.
The state of Israel, no stranger to terrorist attacks, has faced this
dilemma, and in 1999 the Israeli Supreme Court declared cruel, inhumane and
degrading treatment illegal. "A democratic, freedom-loving society," the
court wrote, "does not accept that investigators use any means for the
purpose of uncovering truth. The rules pertaining to investigators are
important to a democratic state. They reflect its character."
I have been asked often where did the brave men I was privileged to
serve with in North Vietnam draw the strength to resist to the best of their
abilities the cruelties inflicted on them by our enemies. They drew strength
from their faith in each other, from their faith in God and from their faith
in our country. Our enemies didn't adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Many of
my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading
treatment, a few of them unto death. But every one of us?every single one of
us?knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from
our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were
reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or approving such
mistreatment of them. That faith was indispensable not only to our survival,
but to our attempts to return home with honor. For without our honor, our
homecoming would have had little value to us.
The enemies we fight today hold our liberal values in contempt, as they hold
in contempt the international conventions that enshrine them. I know that.
But we are better than them, and we are stronger for our faith. And we will
prevail. It is indispensable to our success in this war that those we ask to
fight it know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to
their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans, and
the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their
own affairs and their relations with others?even our enemies.
Those who return to us and those who give their lives for us are entitled to
that honor. And those of us who have given them this onerous duty are
obliged by our history, and the many terrible sacrifices that have been made
in our defense, to make clear to them that they need not risk their or their
country's honor to prevail; that they are always?through the violence, chaos
and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss?they are
always, always, Americans, and different, better and stronger than those who
would destroy us.
McCain is the senior U.S. senator from Arizona.
PSYOP FPI # 840: McCain on Torture
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
from the "How the south expresses politics" thread:
"By McCain calling for "no torture" is not leadership or integrity...it is
simply political pandering and grandstanding. He knows that there are
certain situations that absolutely REQUIRE torture, as exampled above. "
So, having read McCain's actual words, do you still call this political pandering and grandstanding?
"By McCain calling for "no torture" is not leadership or integrity...it is
simply political pandering and grandstanding. He knows that there are
certain situations that absolutely REQUIRE torture, as exampled above. "
So, having read McCain's actual words, do you still call this political pandering and grandstanding?
Brian Vant-Hull
There is NO situtation that justifies the use of TORTURE in my view. Human beings and societies that value the rule of law, freedom, justice and respect for human life cannot ever step into the abyss of Torture.
Until this administration I believed America stood for the rule of law, freedom, justice, and respect for human life equal or more so than any other country in the world. The policies of this administration show that the leaders and supporters of the Bush regime are no better than the evil tyrants they say they oppose. The administrations rationalizations of torture are about as sound as the rationalizations for burning people to death because someone "believed they were witches" in times past. The people who committed those atrocities in our own history were the good church going people of small communities in this very country.
When are we going to learn that trying to rationalize inhuman treatment of others is ALWAYS WRONG no matter who the person happens to be.
Joe
Until this administration I believed America stood for the rule of law, freedom, justice, and respect for human life equal or more so than any other country in the world. The policies of this administration show that the leaders and supporters of the Bush regime are no better than the evil tyrants they say they oppose. The administrations rationalizations of torture are about as sound as the rationalizations for burning people to death because someone "believed they were witches" in times past. The people who committed those atrocities in our own history were the good church going people of small communities in this very country.
When are we going to learn that trying to rationalize inhuman treatment of others is ALWAYS WRONG no matter who the person happens to be.
Joe
Hey Brian,
McCain, in his own words regarding the "ticking time bomb" scenario, argues that an interrogator may well use "extreme measures" to extract actionable info expeditiously, and should be charged with a crime later, but forgiven, or found "not guilty" given the urgency of the circumstances, and the fact that his use of "torture" saved thousands of lives.
Two points here:
First, if torture "never works", then why try it in the ticking time bomb scenario? The answer is simple....TORTURE DOES WORK....every man has a limit of pain and suffering until he "breaks". McCain basically admits this by "forgiving" the torturing interrogator after the fact, plus he has witnessed it firsthand while in 'Nam when many US prisoners succumbed to torture and were coerced into signing "war crimes" admissions in 'Nam.
Secondly, What good is having a "no torture" law if McCain states that the law should be broken in "extremis" cases, and the torturer "forgiven" out of gratitude later?
I think it is better to have "extremis" guidelines for when torture can be instituted. In my opinion, it is better to err on the side of torturing the terrorist and obtaining vital info ASAP, then delaying torture and possibly allowing thousands of Americans to die because of this delay.
McCain is pandering and grandstanding by demanding a "No Torture" Law, when he himself admits that torture works and this law will and should be broken under certain circumstances. But doesn't he sound so saintly and enlightened by calling for a no torture law?......my hero !!!
Look, McCain really is a good guy, I just happen to disagree on how to write this legislation. There should be a explicit exemptions to torture, just as there are exemptions to murder, ie self defense, insanity, etc...
I disagree with McCain on several issues, including Campaign Finance Reform, this torture law, the need for more troops in Iraq, and tax cuts, amongst others.
I agree with McCain that Bush did NOT LIE OR MISLEAD regarding the prewar runup, and that we have to "win" this war in Iraq, as well as his support for judges who strictly interpret the Constitution, as well as many other issues.
McCain is a media darling, and loves the limelight, and tries to position himself with the liberals as much as possible to show that he is "enlightened", and not a right wing ideologue. I just don't buy his straddling act, but I can appreciate how it is appealing to others. If he wins the Repub nomination in 08, I will certainly support him, but he would not be my first choice.
Marco
PS: McCain often half-jokingly calls the media "my base".
McCain, in his own words regarding the "ticking time bomb" scenario, argues that an interrogator may well use "extreme measures" to extract actionable info expeditiously, and should be charged with a crime later, but forgiven, or found "not guilty" given the urgency of the circumstances, and the fact that his use of "torture" saved thousands of lives.
Two points here:
First, if torture "never works", then why try it in the ticking time bomb scenario? The answer is simple....TORTURE DOES WORK....every man has a limit of pain and suffering until he "breaks". McCain basically admits this by "forgiving" the torturing interrogator after the fact, plus he has witnessed it firsthand while in 'Nam when many US prisoners succumbed to torture and were coerced into signing "war crimes" admissions in 'Nam.
Secondly, What good is having a "no torture" law if McCain states that the law should be broken in "extremis" cases, and the torturer "forgiven" out of gratitude later?
I think it is better to have "extremis" guidelines for when torture can be instituted. In my opinion, it is better to err on the side of torturing the terrorist and obtaining vital info ASAP, then delaying torture and possibly allowing thousands of Americans to die because of this delay.
McCain is pandering and grandstanding by demanding a "No Torture" Law, when he himself admits that torture works and this law will and should be broken under certain circumstances. But doesn't he sound so saintly and enlightened by calling for a no torture law?......my hero !!!
Look, McCain really is a good guy, I just happen to disagree on how to write this legislation. There should be a explicit exemptions to torture, just as there are exemptions to murder, ie self defense, insanity, etc...
I disagree with McCain on several issues, including Campaign Finance Reform, this torture law, the need for more troops in Iraq, and tax cuts, amongst others.
I agree with McCain that Bush did NOT LIE OR MISLEAD regarding the prewar runup, and that we have to "win" this war in Iraq, as well as his support for judges who strictly interpret the Constitution, as well as many other issues.
McCain is a media darling, and loves the limelight, and tries to position himself with the liberals as much as possible to show that he is "enlightened", and not a right wing ideologue. I just don't buy his straddling act, but I can appreciate how it is appealing to others. If he wins the Repub nomination in 08, I will certainly support him, but he would not be my first choice.
Marco
PS: McCain often half-jokingly calls the media "my base".
PSYOP FPI # 840: McCain on Torture
If you legalize some forms of torture (allow exemptions in the law) then it
is easy to rationalize that you were in one of the exempt cases. If you
outlaw ALL torture, then you have to argue each case.
Let's take a look at the speed limit. It applies to everyone. If you get
caught speeding you will have to argue your case. Driving someone to the
emergency room would be a good excuse, and you will likely be exonerated.
But if we right into the law what reasons are valid for driving greater than
the limits (breaking the law), then how will the police know which speeders
to pull over? Which ones are breaking the law, and which ones have a valid
excuse? The only way is to make it illegal to drive over the limit and
handle exceptions as they occur.
-Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 1:20 AM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: PSYOP FPI # 840: McCain on Torture
Hey Brian,
McCain, in his own words regarding the "ticking time bomb" scenario, argues
that an interrogator may well use "extreme measures" to extract actionable
info expeditiously, and should be charged with a crime later, but forgiven,
or found "not guilty" given the urgency of the circumstances, and the fact
that his use of "torture" saved thousands of lives.
Two points here:
First, if torture "never works", then why try it in the ticking time bomb
scenario? The answer is simple....TORTURE DOES WORK....every man has a
limit of pain and suffering until he "breaks". McCain basically admits
this by "forgiving" the torturing interrogator after the fact, plus he has
witnessed it firsthand while in 'Nam when many US prisoners succumbed to
torture and were coerced into signing "war crimes" admissions in 'Nam.
Secondly, What good is having a "no torture" law if McCain states that the
law should be broken in "extremis" cases, and the torturer "forgiven" out of
gratitude later?
I think it is better to have "extremis" guidelines for when torture can be
instituted. In my opinion, it is better to err on the side of torturing the
terrorist and obtaining vital info ASAP, then delaying torture and possibly
allowing thousands of Americans to die because of this delay.
McCain is pandering and grandstanding by demanding a "No Torture" Law, when
he himself admits that torture works and this law will and should be broken
under certain circumstances. But doesn't he sound so saintly and
enlightened by calling for a no torture law?......my hero !!!
Look, McCain really is a good guy, I just happen to disagree on how to write
this legislation. There should be a explicit exemptions to torture, just as
there are exemptions to murder, ie self defense, insanity, etc...
I disagree with McCain on several issues, including Campaign Finance Reform,
this torture law, the need for more troops in Iraq, and tax cuts, amongst
others.
I agree with McCain that Bush did NOT LIE OR MISLEAD regarding the prewar
runup, and that we have to "win" this war in Iraq, as well as his support
for judges who strictly interpret the Constitution, as well as many other
issues.
McCain is a media darling, and loves the limelight, and tries to position
himself with the liberals as much as possible to show that he is
"enlightened", and not a right wing ideologue. I just don't buy his
straddling act, but I can appreciate how it is appealing to others. If he
wins the Repub nomination in 08, I will certainly support him, but he would
not be my first choice.
Marco
PS: McCain often half-jokingly calls the media "my base".
is easy to rationalize that you were in one of the exempt cases. If you
outlaw ALL torture, then you have to argue each case.
Let's take a look at the speed limit. It applies to everyone. If you get
caught speeding you will have to argue your case. Driving someone to the
emergency room would be a good excuse, and you will likely be exonerated.
But if we right into the law what reasons are valid for driving greater than
the limits (breaking the law), then how will the police know which speeders
to pull over? Which ones are breaking the law, and which ones have a valid
excuse? The only way is to make it illegal to drive over the limit and
handle exceptions as they occur.
-Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 1:20 AM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: PSYOP FPI # 840: McCain on Torture
Hey Brian,
McCain, in his own words regarding the "ticking time bomb" scenario, argues
that an interrogator may well use "extreme measures" to extract actionable
info expeditiously, and should be charged with a crime later, but forgiven,
or found "not guilty" given the urgency of the circumstances, and the fact
that his use of "torture" saved thousands of lives.
Two points here:
First, if torture "never works", then why try it in the ticking time bomb
scenario? The answer is simple....TORTURE DOES WORK....every man has a
limit of pain and suffering until he "breaks". McCain basically admits
this by "forgiving" the torturing interrogator after the fact, plus he has
witnessed it firsthand while in 'Nam when many US prisoners succumbed to
torture and were coerced into signing "war crimes" admissions in 'Nam.
Secondly, What good is having a "no torture" law if McCain states that the
law should be broken in "extremis" cases, and the torturer "forgiven" out of
gratitude later?
I think it is better to have "extremis" guidelines for when torture can be
instituted. In my opinion, it is better to err on the side of torturing the
terrorist and obtaining vital info ASAP, then delaying torture and possibly
allowing thousands of Americans to die because of this delay.
McCain is pandering and grandstanding by demanding a "No Torture" Law, when
he himself admits that torture works and this law will and should be broken
under certain circumstances. But doesn't he sound so saintly and
enlightened by calling for a no torture law?......my hero !!!
Look, McCain really is a good guy, I just happen to disagree on how to write
this legislation. There should be a explicit exemptions to torture, just as
there are exemptions to murder, ie self defense, insanity, etc...
I disagree with McCain on several issues, including Campaign Finance Reform,
this torture law, the need for more troops in Iraq, and tax cuts, amongst
others.
I agree with McCain that Bush did NOT LIE OR MISLEAD regarding the prewar
runup, and that we have to "win" this war in Iraq, as well as his support
for judges who strictly interpret the Constitution, as well as many other
issues.
McCain is a media darling, and loves the limelight, and tries to position
himself with the liberals as much as possible to show that he is
"enlightened", and not a right wing ideologue. I just don't buy his
straddling act, but I can appreciate how it is appealing to others. If he
wins the Repub nomination in 08, I will certainly support him, but he would
not be my first choice.
Marco
PS: McCain often half-jokingly calls the media "my base".
PSYOP FPI # 840: McCain on Torture
Thanks, Mike - the massive wrong-headedness of Marco's sophistical
defense of torture left me temporarily unable to respond. This
administration campaign for torture only confirms that these guys are
totally out to lunch. I mean this dog just won't hunt! Where is
Karen Hughes to slap some sense into these boys? The current
regime's international stance consists of: (1) the ostrich approach
to global warming, (3) insistence on the right to export to poor
countries without opening our market to their agricultural products,
and (3) codification of torture as standard operating procedure.
Projecting the image of an overweaning, out-of-control superpower is
just the ticket to consolidate international opposition to U.S.
interests and policies across the board - the opposite of coalition-
building. - Hugh
defense of torture left me temporarily unable to respond. This
administration campaign for torture only confirms that these guys are
totally out to lunch. I mean this dog just won't hunt! Where is
Karen Hughes to slap some sense into these boys? The current
regime's international stance consists of: (1) the ostrich approach
to global warming, (3) insistence on the right to export to poor
countries without opening our market to their agricultural products,
and (3) codification of torture as standard operating procedure.
Projecting the image of an overweaning, out-of-control superpower is
just the ticket to consolidate international opposition to U.S.
interests and policies across the board - the opposite of coalition-
building. - Hugh
McCain's Treat with Al Qaeda...
I found this on the National Review blog:
<<LET?S CALL IT ?THE MCCAIN TREATY WITH AL QAEDA? [Andy McCarthy]
To add to the points made by Rich and Jonah, the bottom line here is that al Qaeda is not, under current law, entitled to any protection under the Geneva Convention, the UNCAT?s ?cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment? terms, or the Army Field Manual. Terrorists are entitled not to be tortured, which is illegal under both U.S. law and the portion of UNCAT we ratified without reservations.
This means ? as I have argued previously, here ? that to get additional, prisoner-of-war protections from coercive interrogation, al Qaeda needs a treaty with us. Given that their approach to earning such a treaty has been to mass murder our citizens, no politician in his right mind would ever propose such a thing openly.
But a Geneva-like treaty with al Qaeda is exactly what McCain is proposing ? just without calling it that After all, McCain?s protections are not needed for anyone else ? other countries and their noncombatant civilians are already covered by Geneva and UNCAT. McCain?s Amendment would only be of help to terrorists. (The so-called "international community" actually tried this in 1977 with "Protocol I" to Geneva; ultimately, President Reagan wisely rejected it.)
If we started calling it the ?McCain Treaty with al Qaeda? rather than the ?McCain Amendment,? would that change the perception of it?>>
see blog at: http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_12_ ... asp#084571
<<LET?S CALL IT ?THE MCCAIN TREATY WITH AL QAEDA? [Andy McCarthy]
To add to the points made by Rich and Jonah, the bottom line here is that al Qaeda is not, under current law, entitled to any protection under the Geneva Convention, the UNCAT?s ?cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment? terms, or the Army Field Manual. Terrorists are entitled not to be tortured, which is illegal under both U.S. law and the portion of UNCAT we ratified without reservations.
This means ? as I have argued previously, here ? that to get additional, prisoner-of-war protections from coercive interrogation, al Qaeda needs a treaty with us. Given that their approach to earning such a treaty has been to mass murder our citizens, no politician in his right mind would ever propose such a thing openly.
But a Geneva-like treaty with al Qaeda is exactly what McCain is proposing ? just without calling it that After all, McCain?s protections are not needed for anyone else ? other countries and their noncombatant civilians are already covered by Geneva and UNCAT. McCain?s Amendment would only be of help to terrorists. (The so-called "international community" actually tried this in 1977 with "Protocol I" to Geneva; ultimately, President Reagan wisely rejected it.)
If we started calling it the ?McCain Treaty with al Qaeda? rather than the ?McCain Amendment,? would that change the perception of it?>>
see blog at: http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_12_ ... asp#084571
For Marco or torture champion:
Jose Padilla, an American citizen, was arrested as a terrorist. We were told he was going to make a dirty bomb. Using Marco's logic we should have tortured him to find out when, where, and with whom he was going to execute the act. Had we done that we would know nothing because apparently there was no case maybe not even a plan to commit such an act. After three years of detention of an American Citizen the US government now has charged Padilla with offences far different than the orginal acusations and now the Bush Regime wants to return him to the criminal justice system, something the Bush regime said it could not do because he was "an enemy combatant". The reason Bush wants to move Padilla is the Bush regime wants to avoid having the Supreme Court review and rule on his detention and designation as an enemy combatant. This is just absolute arrogance and abuse of Presidential power.
The handling of this case of an American citizen is a gross abuse of power worthy of impeachment of the President in my view. Any one of us could be in detention now just because Bush and Cheney believe we are terrorists do matter how flimsy the evidence.
Joe
Jose Padilla, an American citizen, was arrested as a terrorist. We were told he was going to make a dirty bomb. Using Marco's logic we should have tortured him to find out when, where, and with whom he was going to execute the act. Had we done that we would know nothing because apparently there was no case maybe not even a plan to commit such an act. After three years of detention of an American Citizen the US government now has charged Padilla with offences far different than the orginal acusations and now the Bush Regime wants to return him to the criminal justice system, something the Bush regime said it could not do because he was "an enemy combatant". The reason Bush wants to move Padilla is the Bush regime wants to avoid having the Supreme Court review and rule on his detention and designation as an enemy combatant. This is just absolute arrogance and abuse of Presidential power.
The handling of this case of an American citizen is a gross abuse of power worthy of impeachment of the President in my view. Any one of us could be in detention now just because Bush and Cheney believe we are terrorists do matter how flimsy the evidence.
Joe
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
PSYOP FPI # 840: McCain on Torture
FDR died before the war ended. If he had lived longer, I suspect he would have said it was one of the most shameful decisions he had made.? My grandfather was a lawyer in LA at the time and had some Japanese clients. At no cost to these clients, he took over their property during their internment so they wouldn't have to sell at great loss.? One of the clients sent him oranges every Christmas for years afterward (I remember the oranges arriving when my grandmother had moved in with us after the death of her husband - before I was born).? Some people are nicer than others. Some people are wiser than others. That's life.
Christy
Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
Yahoo! Photos ? Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover
Photo Books. You design it and we?ll bind it!
Christy
Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
Joe,
Why didn't the Congress impeach FDR for interning 110,000 Japanese-Americans during WW2 without any evidence of collaboration with the Japanese government? What crimes did they commit?
Marco
Yahoo! Photos ? Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover
Photo Books. You design it and we?ll bind it!