mr2mk1g 10 #1 November 16, 2005 Should the CIA be exempt from US laws prohibiting the use of torture? (The question obviously being generated by today's reports that it is the wish of the current administration that the CIA is exempt and thus permitted to torture people - at least under US law in any case). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #2 November 16, 2005 Why would the CIA be an exception to something that doesn't happen? "US President George W Bush defended his government's treatment of detainees, and insisted: "We do not torture". " http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4416116.stm-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #3 November 16, 2005 Yeah it does seem rather Orwellian. "Torture is bad and illegal and we don't condone it and certainly don't do it because it's bad... but we should have the power to will do it if we need to and it's not bad if we do do it... which we don't cos it's bad... OK?" Agree with torture or not... there's just something odd about such a dichotomous stance. Hows it going anyway Nac, back from looking for more black stuff? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ScottishJohn 25 #4 November 16, 2005 Is that torture 'Just' within the USA. Or are they allowed torture within Guantanamo Bay , secret camps for terrorist within East European countries , or within Abu Grab or some other prison camp with Iraq or Afghanistan. John---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you think my attitude stinks you should smell my fingers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #5 November 16, 2005 I've no idea as to the exact text. The majority of news reports use terminology referring to a ban of torture by U.S. personnel or of those held in U.S. custody so at first glance it does not appear to extend to alleged situations where individuals have been passed to other nations for the purposes of torture. Torture's illegal under international law anyway. If any world leader were shown to have given it the go ahead they could theoretically be arrested and tried virtually anywhere in the world once they stepped down from office. It really wouldn't matter what their domestic laws said about the legality of torture by a specific branch of security services. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumper03 0 #6 November 16, 2005 No, under no circumstances should we stoop to using such tactics...we're supposed to be the good guys...maybe we should start acting like it. This one issue has completely and utterly destroyed any iota of trust or credibility Bush had with me (not that that means a flip to him).... How can you say the US will not torture but not pass a law banning it? Hypocrite - liar - two face - many other not so nice words now pop in my head when ever I hear him speak on any topic. I'm ashamed I voted for him in 2000 now.Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #7 November 16, 2005 CNN gallup poll I saw this morning. 38% said that we should torture suspected terrorist. Not "can we", not "proven terrorists", rather "we should torture suspected terrorists." Shameful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #8 November 16, 2005 "Agree with torture or not... there's just something odd about such a dichotomous stance. " Didn't we 'allow' evidence gained from torture or similar methods to be admissable recently, I recall Blunkett trying to push that through, but I've kinda been out of touch. Puts our Tony in a similar dichotomy. "Hows it going anyway Nac, back from looking for more black stuff? " Aye sort of, been away a lot (way too much) this year, some nice places some nasty, but mostly good people all over. Been busy with what little time I have had in this country too. Bought a house built circa 1800, so plenty to keep me out of trouble, which I'm sure will come as a relief to many here.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #9 November 16, 2005 I find it strange that people want to hold the USA up to standards that no country in the world lives up to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #10 November 16, 2005 QuoteI find it strange that people want to hold the USA up to standards that no country in the world lives up to. All countries in the world currently torture people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #11 November 16, 2005 At one time or another Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #12 November 16, 2005 Yes the Govt. is currently arguing that they should be allowed to make use of evidence in court which may have been obtained through torture by third party states. There was a ruling last year by the Court of Appeal which effectively allowed the admissibility of such evidence. The finding was that there was no duty on the prosecution to look into how the evidence was obtained. This seemed to go against the normal rules of evidence. Generally speaking the fruit of the poisoned tree remains poisoned. The case has been appealed and is currently before the House of Lords. Submissions finished only 2 weeks ago and judgment was reserved while the Lords consider the position. We'll find out what the true state of affairs are when we hear the judgment... that's still not for a few weeks yet. There aren't many in the profession who think they'll actually allow it though and it’s predicted to be another bloody nose for Tony. QuoteBought a house built circa 1800, so plenty to keep me out of trouble, which I'm sure will come as a relief to many here. Nice - don't worry though - threads still exist in fear of the sight of the Crimson Permanent Assurance on the horizon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,659 #13 November 16, 2005 QuoteI find it strange that people want to hold the USA up to standards that no country in the world lives up to. Maybe because the USA claims to be the leader of the free world. Maybe because the USA claims to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. Maybe because the USA claims to be in the forefront of the fight for freedom and democracy. Maybe because the USA feels entitled to invade other countries to "liberate" them from tyranny. Maybe because all those things are inconsistent with torturing people.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumper03 0 #14 November 16, 2005 QuoteI find it strange that people want to hold the USA up to standards that no country in the world lives up to. as an American, I would hope we are held to the highest standards - even if they are self imposed. Who gives a shit if the rest of the world doesn't follow them. At the end of the day, its us and the mirror. If you can look in the mirror and be comfortable with torture - then ok. I'm not ok with it and will vote accordingly next time 'round. JumpScars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #15 November 16, 2005 QuoteAt one time or another ahhh okay, so because France in the Middle Ages used torture, the US should be allowed to do it now.... you are right, that makes perfect sense.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,659 #16 November 16, 2005 QuoteAt one time or another Can you provide examples of torture being used by the government in, say, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Netherlands or Denmark?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #17 November 16, 2005 And you expect a truthfulness from politicians??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #18 November 16, 2005 QuoteCan you provide examples of torture being used by the government in, say, Iceland Bjork! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,659 #19 November 16, 2005 QuoteQuoteCan you provide examples of torture being used by the government in, say, Iceland Bjork! Pop stars don't count.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #20 November 16, 2005 First, you need to define torture. Amazing the number of people who responded without this. Are you talking about pschological or physical? Would you consider humiliation a form of torture? How about pissing on the Quoran? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #21 November 16, 2005 Define torture... If you are talking about electrodes on the nuts, or bamboo shoots under the finger nails, then no they should not be exempt... If you are talking about keeping them in uncomfortable cells, with poor climate controls, and noisy neighbors, or not providing them "culturally sensitive" meals, or not giving them a copy of the Koran, or exposing them to long questioning sessions, well then, that should not be against the law in the first place, because it aint torture. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #22 November 16, 2005 QuoteFirst, you need to define torture No you don't really. The proposition is that the CIA should be free from regulation by this law. It would have no influence on what they are permitted to do to detainees so it's definition of torture is irrelevant. No definition of anything required - if the White House gets its way it will be perfectly legal to do anything they want to detainees. Be that pissing on the Quoran or flaying them alive: anything could be on the cards because nothing would be illegal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumper03 0 #23 November 16, 2005 QuoteFirst, you need to define torture. Amazing the number of people who responded without this. Are you talking about pschological or physical? Would you consider humiliation a form of torture? How about pissing on the Quoran? is it bad that when I read the first line - "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is..." popped in my head? Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #24 November 16, 2005 I'll go out on a limb and add. The US should never limit itself the means to possibly get information from individuals known to be involved i.e. with planting a dirty bomb that is due to go off in a unknown US city in 24 hours. All methods of possibly obtaining information to save thousand should be allowed, including underwear on someones head. Where is that Man On Fire when you need him. He was pretty good at getting info. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #25 November 16, 2005 QuoteDefine torture... Anything. This is not a law saying what they can do, but exemption from a law which would say what they can't do. The position would be that the CIA is beyond the reach of the law - so yes bamboo and electrodes all round (at least as far as this law is concerned anyway). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
