Posted on 12/15/2005 8:43:20 AM PST by areafiftyone
don't you know that turning down the temperature in Khaliid Sheik Mohammed's cell is just as bad as what he did on 9-11? McCain says so, it must be true.
</sarcasm>
I suppose I am in the minority on this, but I will say:
For all those here who think torture is a good thing, I hear Al Qaeda is looking for a few good men...
OK, so tell us exactly what you would have done with Khallid Sheik Mohammed after capturing him? do we give him a US crinimal trial, with full rights?
yes, you are in the "minority" on this, because like the others with your position - you never tell us exactly what you would DO in these situations. propose something, don't just tell us "oh, I am against torture". what is your definition of torture?
What a bunch of girly men.
Well, now you're splitting hairs, but I'll try.
Physical torture. Broken bones and the like. High voltage, high temperature.
I suspect torture is kinda like porn, you can't define it, but you know it when you see it.
And no, I don't think letting dogs bark at them is torture. But remember the incident when Lindy whats her name was photo'd with a big smile in front of a pile of naked Iraquis?
I don't consider that torture. But my sense is that our military was way more degraded by tht incident than the Iraqis.
Powell had a good statement on the whole thing, he basically said that we need absolute, definitive statements about what is or is not allowed.
well, this law is vague enough to allow anything to be treated as "torture" - playing loud music, sleep deprivation, barking dogs (funny how you can tune into any episode of COPS and see dogs being used on americans at traffic stops, but we can't do that to Al Qaeda now), turning down the temperature in their cells.
and again, as others have, you ducked the question - tell us what you would do with Khallid Sheik Mohammed after capturing him?
I would leave him in the very capable hands of the US military, to be handled according to the rules established by the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ.
Look, we are on the same side here. If all fanatical muslims disappeared off the face of the Earth tomorrow, I'd be as happy as everyone else.
We disagree about the methods. And I think we can either try to take the high road and act as noble as we can, or we can surrender to our baser instincts, which makes us more like the Soviets with their gulags or the Chicoms.
so far, we haven't been able to try anyone in a military tribunal. the federal courts extended habeas rights to non citizens not on US soil (Gitmo), and when this new law goes on the books, they will extend their reach ever further.
why should KSM get Geneva rules? He is not a Geneva prisoner of war in any sense of the agreement.
all the options of dealing effectively with these people are slowly being taken away.
the "high road"? you are living in a country where the police taser'ed a pregnant woman over a traffic incident. what's the "high road" when dealing with Al Qaeda?
I understand your frustration. But they are actually hanging themselves. There was practically unamimous condemnation of the extremists IN THE MIDEAST ITSELF following the recent bombings in Jordan.
As far as Habeas Corpus goes, these are NON CITIZENS engaged in COMBAT AGAINST US. It doesn't apply.
We should try to not confuse the military way of doing things with the civil authorities, they are apples and oranges.
the detainees at Gitmo were granted habeas rights by the SCOTUS - their cases are piling up in federal court right now. no military tribunals can or will start until this is sorted out. there is a compromise bill started by Lindsey Graham that would replace their habeas right with tha ability to appeal their classification under military justice to two courts - the DC court of appeals and the SCOTUS as I recall.
the Gitmo prisoners have already been granted some important US rights - and that will expand under this new law.
It's a waste of time to give them Habeas. The civil court cannot infringe on the power of the president as commander in chief.
Actually, this discussion is good. While we may not always agree with public opinion in America, I have an abiding faith that we are still basically a very good people, pretty honest, fair, and charitable.
So if an opinion is represented through Congress, then it must reflect the mood of the country. And while it may not stop every instance of possible abuse, it at least puts TPTB that we are watching.
yeah, like the florida jury who let Sammi Al Arian walk.
I don't think most have much problem with the ban on torture, but the ban on "degrading treatment" is nothing short of ridiculous, irregardless it's ratification by the Democratically controlled US Senate. The Ratification of that part of the treaty should be repealed. After all, what's more degrading than getting limbs and certain essential organs blow off by a bomb from an airplane you never even heard or saw? The problem with the new law is that it goes beyond the requirements of the treaty, and extends the protections of the US Bill of Rights to enemies of the US during time of war. It's just stupid beyond belief, even for McCain, even for that '94 Democratic Senate.
Oh jolly, instead of not passing a stupid law, we sanction and pretty much insure, flouting of the law by the executive branch. What other laws can they flout with your OK?
I'd much rather they not pass stupid laws, and repeal those, such as the ratification of the convention, or at least parts of it, that they have already passed, rather than counting on the executive branch to violate the law when it thinks that's necessary.
Then why did the Court say it does? I haven't got a clue, so I guess you'll have to take the matter up with the Court.
how exactly do you expect a congress that consists of mostly cowards to accomplish that?
If you think the CIA doesn't violate the law regularly for national security purposes already, you are naive.
It is not flouting the law. The law doesn't apply to the Agency, even if it does supposedly.
I seem to say it every day but I despise McLame. I also am very ticked off with all the Republicans who supported his measure. What has happened to the Republicans (er, RINOs) we elected to the Senate. That body should we recalled as a whole.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.