It's cruel, inhumane or degrading not torture

CBL4 · 21st November 2005, 10:18 AM

CIA Director Porter Goss says the CIA uses cruel, inhumane or degrading but not torture.

Quote:

The CIA's interrogation methods are "unique" but don't involve torture, agency chief Porter Goss says, although he won't specify just what techniques are used to extract information from prisoners.
...
The Senate has passed a ban on the torture of suspected terrorists in U.S. custody. The bill would restrict techniques used to interrogate foreign terrorism suspects and would ban "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of anyone in U.S. custody. The bill was sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, himself a former prisoner of war in Vietnam.

Without elaborating, Goss suggested that some techniques that would be restricted under McCain's bill have yielded valuable intelligence. He said it was important that the United States have flexibility in dealing with terror suspects in other countries.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/....ap/index.html

CBL

Perforatu · 21st November 2005, 12:43 PM

Ah, the bullet-proof "nuh-uh!" response. How reassuring.

Elind · 21st November 2005, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by CBL4

CIA Director Porter Goss says the CIA uses cruel, inhumane or degrading but not torture.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/....ap/index.html

CBL

In reading the attached comments, I don't see where the CIA Director says what you claim he says. What am I missing? Not reading deep enough into your insights?

fishbob · 21st November 2005, 02:29 PM

From the article:

Quote:

Without elaborating, Goss suggested that some techniques that would be restricted under McCain's bill have yielded valuable intelligence.

Nothing says "nuh-uh!" like that good old-fashiioned lack of elaborating.

Elind · 21st November 2005, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by fishbob

From the article: Without elaborating, Goss suggested that some techniques that would be restricted under McCain's bill have yielded valuable intelligence.

That's not very hard to understand. Saying "please" simply does not always work. What is so frustrating about these debates on torture (there have been many) is simply that everyone seems to think everyone else thinks the word means the same thing. Sort of like that word "theory" that gets floated every now and then.

RandFan · 21st November 2005, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by Elind

That's not very hard to understand. Saying "please" simply does not always work. What is so frustrating about these debates on torture (there have been many) is simply that everyone seems to think everyone else thinks the word means the same thing. Sort of like that word "theory" that gets floated every now and then.

Agreed. I have started a few myself and have been seemingly on both sides. Torture is something that does concern me but I'm also concerned about blanket prohibitions. That being said, I think the problem here lies with the CIA not telling us what exactly it is that they want to do. I'd kind of like to know. Why don't they want to tell us? Is it because we would find it objectionable?

kalen · 21st November 2005, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Why don't they want to tell us? Is it because we would find it objectionable?

If I were a betting man, I'd go "all in."

Elind · 21st November 2005, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Agreed. I have started a few myself and have been seemingly on both sides. Torture is something that does concern me but I'm also concerned about blanket prohibitions. That being said, I think the problem here lies with the CIA not telling us what exactly it is that they want to do. I'd kind of like to know. Why don't they want to tell us? Is it because we would find it objectionable?

Bingo! Most of us would find the same things objectionable, but when it comes to the CIA, for example, they would not be able to operate at all under a tell all, justify all, explain all, answer all, environment.

Certainly it's a catch 22 and we'd all like to be overseers (and not victims one day), but in the final analysis either we have some faith in our own society and ability to correct the worst abuses, eventually, or we have to think we are outside it, and perhaps against it. So far I'm still in it and think I have common values with those people. Obviously some don't. C'est la vie.

What surprises me in all this is how we still haven't figured out a more foolproof method of determining when someone is lying. After all, any question can be answered, with time, if one can simply determine if a response to a question is a yes or no (even if unspoken). I read about monitoring brain activity, facial/body twitches and the like for this sort of thing often. Perhaps that's why the CIA has to fly people here and there? The equipment is too big for the field?

YoPopa · 21st November 2005, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Why don't they want to tell us? Is it because we would find it objectionable?

I'm comfortable with not knowing all the details. I'd be very uncomfortable with the bad guys knowing how we conduct interrogations, what is allowed or disallowed.

We know that lie detectors provide unreliable information. Yet they can be used quite effectively when the bad guy doesn't know what we know about how easily a lie detector can be beaten.

If the CIA is using some psych tricks to extract information then the tricks are not going to work as well and perhaps not at all if the cat gets out of the bag. We are playing a life and death game with savages who think that their Dog wants them to murder innocents. I want our side to have every advantage possible in obtaining information about who, when, how & where.

.

Manny · 21st November 2005, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Why don't they want to tell us? Is it because we would find it objectionable?

I think it's because the bad guys would find it useful. Take waterboarding. Suppose they do this. Suppose further that an average guy starts giving up information (or, to be clear, misinformation -- none of the tactics is guaranteed to succeed) after 20 seconds. And suppose that the toughest hombre the CIA ever waterboarded gave up after two minutes. And suppose, finally, that the CIA determined that three minutes was the absolute maximum they'd waterboard someone. Well, BAM! Every potential CIA captive for the rest of history knows that this scary, potentially life-threatening (from the captive's perspective) thing was really just a three-minute endurance test that any idiot could endure if only he knew when it would end, and he now knows it ends after 180 seconds. Goodbye interrogation, hello Ground Zero Chicago. Or LA. Or Wherever.

That said, I agree there should be more oversight, including legislative oversight, particularly in light of the obviously abusive practices which other agencies have been disclosed to use.

drkitten · 22nd November 2005, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Elind

In reading the attached comments, I don't see where the CIA Director says what you claim he says. What am I missing? Not reading deep enough into your insights?

Well, the bill bans ' "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of anyone in U.S. custody.' The CIA director says that "some techniques that would be restricted under McCain's bill have yielded valuable intelligence." It follows that they have used techniques that are "cruel, inhumane, or degrading," or they wouldn't be restricted.

Elind · 22nd November 2005, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Well, the bill bans ' "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of anyone in U.S. custody.' The CIA director says that "some techniques that would be restricted under McCain's bill have yielded valuable intelligence." It follows that they have used techniques that are "cruel, inhumane, or degrading," or they wouldn't be restricted.

Quite obviously there is no absolute consensus on what is cruel etc. Holding someone prisoner could be called cruel to begin with. Saying something mean about their religion could be called degrading, but I see little wrong with saying something degrading about philosophies that we all otherwise call degrading. Please don't say you don't understand.

I see little wrong with holding known or suspected terrorists prisoner.

I know what I think is inhumane, but I'll bet that while we will have many acts in common if we list them, your list will be longer than mine, because you're such a sweet person and I'm a cranky SOB, and I'll get information that will save lives, and you won't.

Try to imagine what a farce the entire process of interrogation and intelligence gathering in general will become if it is monitored by third parties who will judge the process at every step, and teach our enemies how to say no more effectively.

Now try to read a little more into your logic conclusion above, and pick a side, if you care who wins.

drkitten · 22nd November 2005, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Elind

Quite obviously there is no absolute consensus on what is cruel etc.

Yes. And quite obviously, the CIA director believes that at least part of what the CIA does to its prisoners qualifies as "cruel," or he wouldn't have made that statement. You're hiding behind semantics, and doing a rather poor job of it. If the CIA director really believed that what they were doing would pass muster under the new bill, he wouldn't have objected.

Quote:

Try to imagine what a farce the entire process of interrogation and intelligence gathering in general will become if it is monitored by third parties who will judge the process at every step, and teach our enemies how to say no more effectively.

Yeah. And that whole idea of "rule of law" is such a farce, too. Obviously, we should just be able to grab any person off the street whom we suspect of having committed a crime and beat them until they pass blood, or put their eyes out with branding irons to get them to confess.

Would you put any limitations whatsoever on what the local police department was permitted to do in the process of investigating a murder? If so, why shouldn't the CIA be subject to the same limitations?

YoPopa · 22nd November 2005, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Yes. And quite obviously, the CIA director believes that at least part of what the CIA does to its prisoners qualifies as "cruel," or he wouldn't have made that statement. You're hiding behind semantics, and doing a rather poor job of it. If the CIA director really believed that what they were doing would pass muster under the new bill, he wouldn't have objected.

I don't find it that obvious. My interpretation would be that with the new rule in place practically anything could be interpreted as "cruel". The CIA director is simply pointing out the weakness of the bill. With wording that ambiguous the war on terror will be conducted in the courtroom. Which would be OK if the terrorists were suing us.

Quote:

And that whole idea of "rule of law" is such a farce, too. Obviously, we should just be able to grab any person off the street whom we suspect of having committed a crime and beat them until they pass blood, or put their eyes out with branding irons to get them to confess.

I am surprised you drag the argument down to this level drkitten. I have previously admired your intelligence and rationality.

Quote:

Would you put any limitations whatsoever on what the local police department was permitted to do in the process of investigating a murder? If so, why shouldn't the CIA be subject to the same limitations?

Of course there are limitations on the police. Those limitations are tested regularly in the courts. The limitations on the military are and should remain entirely different. Police brutality belongs in another thread.

.

Elind · 22nd November 2005, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Yes. And quite obviously, the CIA director believes that at least part of what the CIA does to its prisoners qualifies as "cruel," or he wouldn't have made that statement. You're hiding behind semantics, and doing a rather poor job of it. If the CIA director really believed that what they were doing would pass muster under the new bill, he wouldn't have objected.

Yeah. And that whole idea of "rule of law" is such a farce, too. Obviously, we should just be able to grab any person off the street whom we suspect of having committed a crime and beat them until they pass blood, or put their eyes out with branding irons to get them to confess.

Would you put any limitations whatsoever on what the local police department was permitted to do in the process of investigating a murder? If so, why shouldn't the CIA be subject to the same limitations?

You are not paying attention to what I say. Pointless discussion.

CBL4 · 22nd November 2005, 01:47 PM

I foolishly think the US is supposed to be different from the other side. If we decide that "cruel, inhumane and degrading" behavior is OK, then the distinction between good and evil (yes, they are evil) starts to be meaningless.

The end does not justify the means.

CBL

pgwenthold · 22nd November 2005, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by manny

I think it's because the bad guys would find it useful. Take waterboarding. Suppose they do this. Suppose further that an average guy starts giving up information (or, to be clear, misinformation -- none of the tactics is guaranteed to succeed) after 20 seconds. And suppose that the toughest hombre the CIA ever waterboarded gave up after two minutes.

Was that the guy that gave us all those juicy details about the locations of the WMD in Iraq?

YoPopa · 22nd November 2005, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by CBL4

I foolishly think the US is supposed to be different from the other side.

We are different than the other side if only by reason of the fact that we do not publicly behead innocents. Any place we stop short of that is gravy.

Quote:

If we decide that "cruel, inhumane and degrading" behavior is OK, then the distinction between good and evil (yes, they are evil) starts to be meaningless.

No one is saying that "cruel, inhumane and degrading" behavior is OK.

What I believe is that using the words "cruel, inhumane and degrading" as primary criteria in legislation is showing stuck on stupid. The words are just too ambiguous and provide an open invitation for every terrorist to challenge everything from the air conditioning to their right to conjugal visits.

Elind · 22nd November 2005, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by CBL4

I foolishly think the US is supposed to be different from the other side. If we decide that "cruel, inhumane and degrading" behavior is OK, then the distinction between good and evil (yes, they are evil) starts to be meaningless.

The end does not justify the means.

CBL

Be specific. Define those terms. You expect the CIA to do so, why won't you?

drkitten · 23rd November 2005, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by YoPopa

Of course there are limitations on the police. Those limitations are tested regularly in the courts. The limitations on the military are and should remain entirely different.

Um,.... I don't quite know how to tell you this, but.... the CIA isn't military.

And, in fact, there are quite stringent limitations in place about what the military is allowed to do to prisoners in custory, too. There were a few well-publicized court-martials recently over violations of those limitations, precisely because the miliary is not allowed to torture people. And the UCMJ is actually rather draconian in that regard.

However, the CIA doesn't come under the UCMJ (or most civilian law, for that matter). That's exactly what the proposed law is about. There are limitations on the local police. There are limitations on the federal police. There are limitations on the military. For some reason, the entire rest of the US law enforcement, military, and homeland security directorate manages to survive and work (for the most part) within those limitations.

Why can't the CIA? What's the problem with limitations on the CIA?

Quoting you:

Quote:

My interpretation would be that with the new rule in place practically anything could be interpreted as "cruel". The CIA director is simply pointing out the weakness of the bill. With wording that ambiguous the war on terror will be conducted in the courtroom.

This doesn't seem to be a problem for the rest of the homeland security directorate. Padilla was just indicted, the Gitmo prisoners are being treated more or less in accord with the Geneva Conventions (and the Red Cross is monitoring the situation), and, of course, the prison torture scandal resulted in court-martials all around.

Again, why can't the CIA play by the same rules as everyone else?

drkitten · 23rd November 2005, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by YoPopa

No one is saying that "cruel, inhumane and degrading" behavior is OK.

You are. In fact, you just did:

Quote:

We are different than the other side if only by reason of the fact that we do not publicly behead innocents. Any place we stop short of that is gravy.

YoPopa · 23rd November 2005, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

You are. In fact, you just did:

Ooops, ya got me there. In a literal interpretation that is what I said. My apology. I am not very good at expressing myself in writing.
I did write "We are different than the other side if only by reason of the fact that we do not publicly behead innocents. Any place we stop short of that is gravy." The thought I was trying to express here is the degree to which we are different from the terrorists. That was in a different paragraph from the "cruel, inhumane and degrading" thought. I made it a separate paragraph because I was trying to separate the two points. I still believe that we are very different and that we stop way short of public beheading of innocents. I like gravy, lots of gravy.

And in a different point entirely. I am against "cruel, inhumane and degrading" behavior. But I am also against making it a crime without a strict definition with some testable criteria. I am not going to be able to explain this very clearly either. That is in part do the fact that I have not fleshed out my own thoughts entirely and I am not an expert in matters of law.

Do you have definitions for these words that you feel would allow you as a judge or jury member to clearly separate the good guys from the bad guys?

And more importantly:

If you were accused in court of being cruel, would you feel comfortable with the task of falsifying the charge?

I do not ask these questions rhetorically. I think you are very intelligent and I would not be surprised if your answers satisfy my discomfort.

I personally think that a lot of posts on these JREF Forums are intentionally degrading to people with strongly held religious beliefs. There are even a few posters who do this in a cruel way. I don't want to see any laws enacted to restrict this behavior. I don't even accuse the mods of being overly lax. I don't like hate crime laws and it is my impression that using the words cruel, inhumane and degrading, in a law may be turning it into a hate crime law. In fact, I HATE hate crime laws. Requiring a jury to convict or absolve based on what they think was in the mind of the accused is so open to abuse in both directions.

.

CBL4 · 23rd November 2005, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elind
Be specific. Define those terms. You expect the CIA to do so, why won't you?

Hmm, let's see. I have bachelors degree in Mathematics. The US government employs thousands of lawyers. Do think there might be a reason I would expect the government to be able to define these terms even if I cannot?

These terms are defined in international and national law. 90 US senators thought there was enough legal definition to pass a law. Laws like this are obviously not black and white but that does not mean we do not have laws on similar things like police brutality.

CBL

YoPopa · 23rd November 2005, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by CBL4

The US government employs thousands of lawyers. Do think there might be a reason I would expect the government to be able to define these terms even if I cannot?

Wow, trusting thousands of government lawyers to have the answer.

Lawyer^1,000s times more twisted logic than I thought possible.

.

21st November 2005, 10:18 AM	#1
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349	It's cruel, inhumane or degrading not torture CIA Director Porter Goss says the CIA uses cruel, inhumane or degrading but not torture. Quote: The CIA's interrogation methods are "unique" but don't involve torture, agency chief Porter Goss says, although he won't specify just what techniques are used to extract information from prisoners. ... The Senate has passed a ban on the torture of suspected terrorists in U.S. custody. The bill would restrict techniques used to interrogate foreign terrorism suspects and would ban "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of anyone in U.S. custody. The bill was sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, himself a former prisoner of war in Vietnam. Without elaborating, Goss suggested that some techniques that would be restricted under McCain's bill have yielded valuable intelligence. He said it was important that the United States have flexibility in dealing with terror suspects in other countries. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/....ap/index.html CBL
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349

21st November 2005, 02:29 PM	#4
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 5,666	From the article: Quote: Without elaborating, Goss suggested that some techniques that would be restricted under McCain's bill have yielded valuable intelligence. Nothing says "nuh-uh!" like that good old-fashiioned lack of elaborating.
	__________________ When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder "Stupidity - a callow indifference to facts or data" - Stuart Firestein -neuroscientist. I hate bigots.

21st November 2005, 06:56 PM	#6
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,128	Originally Posted by Elind That's not very hard to understand. Saying "please" simply does not always work. What is so frustrating about these debates on torture (there have been many) is simply that everyone seems to think everyone else thinks the word means the same thing. Sort of like that word "theory" that gets floated every now and then. Agreed. I have started a few myself and have been seemingly on both sides. Torture is something that does concern me but I'm also concerned about blanket prohibitions. That being said, I think the problem here lies with the CIA not telling us what exactly it is that they want to do. I'd kind of like to know. Why don't they want to tell us? Is it because we would find it objectionable?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

21st November 2005, 07:02 PM	#7
kalen Your Daddy Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Classified Posts: 933	Originally Posted by RandFan Why don't they want to tell us? Is it because we would find it objectionable? If I were a betting man, I'd go "all in."
	__________________ No way! Yahweh!

21st November 2005, 10:00 PM	#10
Manny Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,295	Originally Posted by RandFan Why don't they want to tell us? Is it because we would find it objectionable? I think it's because the bad guys would find it useful. Take waterboarding. Suppose they do this. Suppose further that an average guy starts giving up information (or, to be clear, misinformation -- none of the tactics is guaranteed to succeed) after 20 seconds. And suppose that the toughest hombre the CIA ever waterboarded gave up after two minutes. And suppose, finally, that the CIA determined that three minutes was the absolute maximum they'd waterboard someone. Well, BAM! Every potential CIA captive for the rest of history knows that this scary, potentially life-threatening (from the captive's perspective) thing was really just a three-minute endurance test that any idiot could endure if only he knew when it would end, and he now knows it ends after 180 seconds. Goodbye interrogation, hello Ground Zero Chicago. Or LA. Or Wherever. That said, I agree there should be more oversight, including legislative oversight, particularly in light of the obviously abusive practices which other agencies have been disclosed to use.
Manny Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,295

21st November 2005, 12:43 PM	#2
Perforatu Thinker Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: 's-Hertogenbosch Posts: 171	Ah, the bullet-proof "nuh-uh!" response. How reassuring.

21st November 2005, 01:28 PM	#3
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,622	Originally Posted by CBL4 CIA Director Porter Goss says the CIA uses cruel, inhumane or degrading but not torture. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/....ap/index.html CBL In reading the attached comments, I don't see where the CIA Director says what you claim he says. What am I missing? Not reading deep enough into your insights?

21st November 2005, 06:46 PM	#5
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,622	Originally Posted by fishbob From the article: Without elaborating, Goss suggested that some techniques that would be restricted under McCain's bill have yielded valuable intelligence. That's not very hard to understand. Saying "please" simply does not always work. What is so frustrating about these debates on torture (there have been many) is simply that everyone seems to think everyone else thinks the word means the same thing. Sort of like that word "theory" that gets floated every now and then.

21st November 2005, 07:48 PM	#8
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,622	Originally Posted by RandFan Agreed. I have started a few myself and have been seemingly on both sides. Torture is something that does concern me but I'm also concerned about blanket prohibitions. That being said, I think the problem here lies with the CIA not telling us what exactly it is that they want to do. I'd kind of like to know. Why don't they want to tell us? Is it because we would find it objectionable? Bingo! Most of us would find the same things objectionable, but when it comes to the CIA, for example, they would not be able to operate at all under a tell all, justify all, explain all, answer all, environment. Certainly it's a catch 22 and we'd all like to be overseers (and not victims one day), but in the final analysis either we have some faith in our own society and ability to correct the worst abuses, eventually, or we have to think we are outside it, and perhaps against it. So far I'm still in it and think I have common values with those people. Obviously some don't. C'est la vie. What surprises me in all this is how we still haven't figured out a more foolproof method of determining when someone is lying. After all, any question can be answered, with time, if one can simply determine if a response to a question is a yes or no (even if unspoken). I read about monitoring brain activity, facial/body twitches and the like for this sort of thing often. Perhaps that's why the CIA has to fly people here and there? The equipment is too big for the field?

21st November 2005, 08:07 PM	#9
YoPopa Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: State of Yo Posts: 1,497	Originally Posted by RandFan Why don't they want to tell us? Is it because we would find it objectionable? I'm comfortable with not knowing all the details. I'd be very uncomfortable with the bad guys knowing how we conduct interrogations, what is allowed or disallowed. We know that lie detectors provide unreliable information. Yet they can be used quite effectively when the bad guy doesn't know what we know about how easily a lie detector can be beaten. If the CIA is using some psych tricks to extract information then the tricks are not going to work as well and perhaps not at all if the cat gets out of the bag. We are playing a life and death game with savages who think that their Dog wants them to murder innocents. I want our side to have every advantage possible in obtaining information about who, when, how & where. .

22nd November 2005, 10:26 AM	#11
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by Elind In reading the attached comments, I don't see where the CIA Director says what you claim he says. What am I missing? Not reading deep enough into your insights? Well, the bill bans ' "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of anyone in U.S. custody.' The CIA director says that "some techniques that would be restricted under McCain's bill have yielded valuable intelligence." It follows that they have used techniques that are "cruel, inhumane, or degrading," or they wouldn't be restricted.

22nd November 2005, 11:28 AM	#12
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,622	Originally Posted by drkitten Well, the bill bans ' "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of anyone in U.S. custody.' The CIA director says that "some techniques that would be restricted under McCain's bill have yielded valuable intelligence." It follows that they have used techniques that are "cruel, inhumane, or degrading," or they wouldn't be restricted. Quite obviously there is no absolute consensus on what is cruel etc. Holding someone prisoner could be called cruel to begin with. Saying something mean about their religion could be called degrading, but I see little wrong with saying something degrading about philosophies that we all otherwise call degrading. Please don't say you don't understand. I see little wrong with holding known or suspected terrorists prisoner. I know what I think is inhumane, but I'll bet that while we will have many acts in common if we list them, your list will be longer than mine, because you're such a sweet person and I'm a cranky SOB, and I'll get information that will save lives, and you won't. Try to imagine what a farce the entire process of interrogation and intelligence gathering in general will become if it is monitored by third parties who will judge the process at every step, and teach our enemies how to say no more effectively. Now try to read a little more into your logic conclusion above, and pick a side, if you care who wins.

22nd November 2005, 12:00 PM	#13
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by Elind Quite obviously there is no absolute consensus on what is cruel etc. Yes. And quite obviously, the CIA director believes that at least part of what the CIA does to its prisoners qualifies as "cruel," or he wouldn't have made that statement. You're hiding behind semantics, and doing a rather poor job of it. If the CIA director really believed that what they were doing would pass muster under the new bill, he wouldn't have objected. Quote: Try to imagine what a farce the entire process of interrogation and intelligence gathering in general will become if it is monitored by third parties who will judge the process at every step, and teach our enemies how to say no more effectively. Yeah. And that whole idea of "rule of law" is such a farce, too. Obviously, we should just be able to grab any person off the street whom we suspect of having committed a crime and beat them until they pass blood, or put their eyes out with branding irons to get them to confess. Would you put any limitations whatsoever on what the local police department was permitted to do in the process of investigating a murder? If so, why shouldn't the CIA be subject to the same limitations?

22nd November 2005, 01:05 PM	#14
YoPopa Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: State of Yo Posts: 1,497	Originally Posted by drkitten Yes. And quite obviously, the CIA director believes that at least part of what the CIA does to its prisoners qualifies as "cruel," or he wouldn't have made that statement. You're hiding behind semantics, and doing a rather poor job of it. If the CIA director really believed that what they were doing would pass muster under the new bill, he wouldn't have objected. I don't find it that obvious. My interpretation would be that with the new rule in place practically anything could be interpreted as "cruel". The CIA director is simply pointing out the weakness of the bill. With wording that ambiguous the war on terror will be conducted in the courtroom. Which would be OK if the terrorists were suing us. Quote: And that whole idea of "rule of law" is such a farce, too. Obviously, we should just be able to grab any person off the street whom we suspect of having committed a crime and beat them until they pass blood, or put their eyes out with branding irons to get them to confess. I am surprised you drag the argument down to this level drkitten. I have previously admired your intelligence and rationality. Quote: Would you put any limitations whatsoever on what the local police department was permitted to do in the process of investigating a murder? If so, why shouldn't the CIA be subject to the same limitations? Of course there are limitations on the police. Those limitations are tested regularly in the courts. The limitations on the military are and should remain entirely different. Police brutality belongs in another thread. .

22nd November 2005, 01:31 PM	#15
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,622	Originally Posted by drkitten Yes. And quite obviously, the CIA director believes that at least part of what the CIA does to its prisoners qualifies as "cruel," or he wouldn't have made that statement. You're hiding behind semantics, and doing a rather poor job of it. If the CIA director really believed that what they were doing would pass muster under the new bill, he wouldn't have objected. Yeah. And that whole idea of "rule of law" is such a farce, too. Obviously, we should just be able to grab any person off the street whom we suspect of having committed a crime and beat them until they pass blood, or put their eyes out with branding irons to get them to confess. Would you put any limitations whatsoever on what the local police department was permitted to do in the process of investigating a murder? If so, why shouldn't the CIA be subject to the same limitations? You are not paying attention to what I say. Pointless discussion.

22nd November 2005, 01:47 PM	#16
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349	I foolishly think the US is supposed to be different from the other side. If we decide that "cruel, inhumane and degrading" behavior is OK, then the distinction between good and evil (yes, they are evil) starts to be meaningless. The end does not justify the means. CBL
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349

22nd November 2005, 01:48 PM	#17
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,066	Originally Posted by manny I think it's because the bad guys would find it useful. Take waterboarding. Suppose they do this. Suppose further that an average guy starts giving up information (or, to be clear, misinformation -- none of the tactics is guaranteed to succeed) after 20 seconds. And suppose that the toughest hombre the CIA ever waterboarded gave up after two minutes. Was that the guy that gave us all those juicy details about the locations of the WMD in Iraq?
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

22nd November 2005, 02:31 PM	#18
YoPopa Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: State of Yo Posts: 1,497	Originally Posted by CBL4 I foolishly think the US is supposed to be different from the other side. We are different than the other side if only by reason of the fact that we do not publicly behead innocents. Any place we stop short of that is gravy. Quote: If we decide that "cruel, inhumane and degrading" behavior is OK, then the distinction between good and evil (yes, they are evil) starts to be meaningless. No one is saying that "cruel, inhumane and degrading" behavior is OK. What I believe is that using the words "cruel, inhumane and degrading" as primary criteria in legislation is showing stuck on stupid. The words are just too ambiguous and provide an open invitation for every terrorist to challenge everything from the air conditioning to their right to conjugal visits.

22nd November 2005, 04:20 PM	#19
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,622	Originally Posted by CBL4 I foolishly think the US is supposed to be different from the other side. If we decide that "cruel, inhumane and degrading" behavior is OK, then the distinction between good and evil (yes, they are evil) starts to be meaningless. The end does not justify the means. CBL Be specific. Define those terms. You expect the CIA to do so, why won't you?

23rd November 2005, 07:39 AM	#20
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by YoPopa Of course there are limitations on the police. Those limitations are tested regularly in the courts. The limitations on the military are and should remain entirely different. Um,.... I don't quite know how to tell you this, but.... the CIA isn't military. And, in fact, there are quite stringent limitations in place about what the military is allowed to do to prisoners in custory, too. There were a few well-publicized court-martials recently over violations of those limitations, precisely because the miliary is not allowed to torture people. And the UCMJ is actually rather draconian in that regard. However, the CIA doesn't come under the UCMJ (or most civilian law, for that matter). That's exactly what the proposed law is about. There are limitations on the local police. There are limitations on the federal police. There are limitations on the military. For some reason, the entire rest of the US law enforcement, military, and homeland security directorate manages to survive and work (for the most part) within those limitations. Why can't the CIA? What's the problem with limitations on the CIA? Quoting you: Quote: My interpretation would be that with the new rule in place practically anything could be interpreted as "cruel". The CIA director is simply pointing out the weakness of the bill. With wording that ambiguous the war on terror will be conducted in the courtroom. This doesn't seem to be a problem for the rest of the homeland security directorate. Padilla was just indicted, the Gitmo prisoners are being treated more or less in accord with the Geneva Conventions (and the Red Cross is monitoring the situation), and, of course, the prison torture scandal resulted in court-martials all around. Again, why can't the CIA play by the same rules as everyone else?

23rd November 2005, 07:43 AM	#21
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by YoPopa No one is saying that "cruel, inhumane and degrading" behavior is OK. You are. In fact, you just did: Quote: We are different than the other side if only by reason of the fact that we do not publicly behead innocents. Any place we stop short of that is gravy.

23rd November 2005, 09:08 AM	#22
YoPopa Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: State of Yo Posts: 1,497	Originally Posted by drkitten You are. In fact, you just did: Ooops, ya got me there. In a literal interpretation that is what I said. My apology. I am not very good at expressing myself in writing. I did write "We are different than the other side if only by reason of the fact that we do not publicly behead innocents. Any place we stop short of that is gravy." The thought I was trying to express here is the degree to which we are different from the terrorists. That was in a different paragraph from the "cruel, inhumane and degrading" thought. I made it a separate paragraph because I was trying to separate the two points. I still believe that we are very different and that we stop way short of public beheading of innocents. I like gravy, lots of gravy. And in a different point entirely. I am against "cruel, inhumane and degrading" behavior. But I am also against making it a crime without a strict definition with some testable criteria. I am not going to be able to explain this very clearly either. That is in part do the fact that I have not fleshed out my own thoughts entirely and I am not an expert in matters of law. Do you have definitions for these words that you feel would allow you as a judge or jury member to clearly separate the good guys from the bad guys? And more importantly: If you were accused in court of being cruel, would you feel comfortable with the task of falsifying the charge? I do not ask these questions rhetorically. I think you are very intelligent and I would not be surprised if your answers satisfy my discomfort. I personally think that a lot of posts on these JREF Forums are intentionally degrading to people with strongly held religious beliefs. There are even a few posters who do this in a cruel way. I don't want to see any laws enacted to restrict this behavior. I don't even accuse the mods of being overly lax. I don't like hate crime laws and it is my impression that using the words cruel, inhumane and degrading, in a law may be turning it into a hate crime law. In fact, I HATE hate crime laws. Requiring a jury to convict or absolve based on what they think was in the mind of the accused is so open to abuse in both directions. .

23rd November 2005, 09:47 AM	#23
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349	Quote: Originally posted by Elind Be specific. Define those terms. You expect the CIA to do so, why won't you? Hmm, let's see. I have bachelors degree in Mathematics. The US government employs thousands of lawyers. Do think there might be a reason I would expect the government to be able to define these terms even if I cannot? These terms are defined in international and national law. 90 US senators thought there was enough legal definition to pass a law. Laws like this are obviously not black and white but that does not mean we do not have laws on similar things like police brutality. CBL
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349

23rd November 2005, 01:27 PM	#24
YoPopa Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: State of Yo Posts: 1,497	Originally Posted by CBL4 The US government employs thousands of lawyers. Do think there might be a reason I would expect the government to be able to define these terms even if I cannot? Wow, trusting thousands of government lawyers to have the answer. Lawyer^1,000s times more twisted logic than I thought possible. .