And it just keeps getting deeper...

[bullypulpit]

New information has surfaced regarding the Bush administration's search for legal rationale to justify the use of torture. This time, it comes in the form of "Well gosh, if it's for the good of the country it's okay...".

<blockquote>While the Geneva Conventions prohibit “outrages upon personal dignity,” a letter sent by the Justice Department to Congress on March 5 makes clear that the administration has not drawn a precise line in deciding which interrogation methods would violate that standard, and is reserving the right to make case-by-case judgments.

“The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act,” said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public. - <a href=>NYT</a></blockquote>

It is worth noting, since Mr. Benczkowski brought up the Geneva Convention, that Article 1 of the General Provisions of the Convention states the following:

<blockquote>The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention <b><i>in all circumstances</i></b>.</blockquote>

Article 2, para3 of the General Provisions of the Convention goes on to say:
<blockquote>Although one of the Powers in conflict <b><i>may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations</i></b>. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.</blockquote>

In short, Mr. Benczkowski's attempts to assert legal authority where none exists falls as flat as the rest of the Bush administration's attempts to circumvent US law and treaty obligations regarding the issue of torture. There is no exception under US law or treaty obligation which grants the Bush administration the authority to order the torture of detainees.

For a summary of US law and treaty obligations regarding torture, go <a href=http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm>HERE</a>.

[theHawk]

I could really care less what international laws say about torture. In today's world we need to leave all option on the table. We should revoke all these stupid treaties because all they end up doing is tying our hands behind our back.

Would you want a terrorist attack to be carried out on US soil because some law stops us from preventing it? We all know that any Presdient, Republican or Democrat, will use torture to extract intell in a dire situation.

[manu1959]

I could really care less what international laws say about torture. In today's world we need to leave all option on the table. We should revoke all these stupid treaties because all they end up doing is tying our hands behind our back.

Would you want a terrorist attack to be carried out on US soil because some law stops us from preventing it? We all know that any Presdient, Republican or Democrat, will use torture to extract intell in a dire situation.

totally agree.....if they are cutting the heads off reporters, hiding in mosques, hanging bodies from bridges.......they should expect to have dogs bark at them, women give them lap dances, be stacked naked, forced to stay up late and listen to rock and roll and prentend to be drowned....god help them if the every attack a frat house.....

[retiredman]

those who would deliberately ignore treaties that the US government has signed and ratified are nothing less than domestic enemies of our constitution.

[semi liberal girl]

those who would deliberately ignore treaties that the US government has signed and ratified are nothing less than domestic enemies of our constitution.

I see the "preacher" is worried about the rights and comfort of terrorists who want to kill us

Given your previous posts I have read, I am not in the least bit surprised

[retiredman]

I see the "preacher" is worried about the rights and comfort of terrorists who want to kill us

Given your previous posts I have read, I am not in the least bit surprised

if we decide, as a nation, that we no longer wish to abide by a treaty, we can abrogate it. Article VI(2) states quite unambiguously that treaties entered into by our government become the - quote- SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND - unquote.

I have no desire to provide any of our enemies with any special rights. I DO, however, want to abide by our constitution. Those who would piss on our constitution are, by definition, domestic enemies thereof.

[manu1959]

those who would deliberately ignore treaties that the US government has signed and ratified are nothing less than domestic enemies of our constitution.

unless those treaties are not in the best intrests of the people and the welfare of the nation.....in which case it is my right to speak up and challenge your claim.....to protect this nation.....and its people....

[semi liberal girl]

unless those treaties are not in the best intrests of the people and the welfare of the nation.....in which case it is my right to speak up and challenge your claim.....to protect this nation.....and its people....

Now you did it - MFM will now call you an enemy of the state and form the firing squad as he wanted to do to RSR

[retiredman]

unless those treaties are not in the best intrests of the people and the welfare of the nation.....in which case it is my right to speak up and challenge your claim.....to protect this nation.....and its people....

no. your right, as a citizen, is to take steps to get treaties abrogated. until they are, they should be obeyed as the supreme law of the land.

[bullypulpit]

I could really care less what international laws say about torture. In today's world we need to leave all option on the table. We should revoke all these stupid treaties because all they end up doing is tying our hands behind our back.

Would you want a terrorist attack to be carried out on US soil because some law stops us from preventing it? We all know that any Presdient, Republican or Democrat, will use torture to extract intell in a dire situation.

So, the rule of law is "quaint and antiquated"? Sorry, but if you reject the rule of law, you reject the very foundation upon which this nation was built. The law must apply equally to all or it applies to no one, and our government becomes little better than those enemies it seeks to check.

As for torture itself, any information secured by such means is inadmissible in any court of law because was a) secured through coercion and, b) Such evidence is unreliable. Torture does little more than produce false confessions. Good HUMINT and SIGINT will provice far better and more reliable intel than torture ever has or ever will.

President Bush (aka Chimpy McPresident) has stated that the "war on terrorism" is about values, as in "the non-negotiable demands of human dignity." To support the "demands of human dignity" means that one stands opposed to torture and other forms of abuse. The tortured logic of the Yoo, Gonzalez, Bybee and, now, the Benczkowski memos fly squarely in the face of that declaration of President Bush's. More likely though is that they show just how empty that high flying rhetoric actually was.

The Bush administration has never been shy about ignoring the rule of law when it suits them.

[theHawk]

As for torture itself, any information secured by such means is inadmissible in any court of law because was a) secured through coercion and, b) Such evidence is unreliable. Torture does little more than produce false confessions. Good HUMINT and SIGINT will provice far better and more reliable intel than torture ever has or ever will.

Whoever said information extracted via torture should be or would be used in a court of law? The purpose of gathering any such intelligence would be to prevent terrorist attacks or to help hunt down terrorists in our war against jihadists. This is a war, not a policing action with trials to be held for each and every terrorist we come across.

[glockmail]

Whoever said information extracted via torture should be or would be used in a court of law? The purpose of gathering any such intelligence would be to prevent terrorist attacks or to help hunt down terrorists in our war against jihadists. This is a war, not a policing action with trials to be held for each and every terrorist we come across.

You might just as well be talking to a wall. Libs like bullypulpit think that wars should be fought like police actions, with terrorists given all the rights and privileges given American citizens, and with the burden of capture without excessive force, evidence gathering, legal preparation, jury trials with the burden of proof on the US military, and of course an appeal process.

[bullypulpit]

Whoever said information extracted via torture should be or would be used in a court of law? The purpose of gathering any such intelligence would be to prevent terrorist attacks or to help hunt down terrorists in our war against jihadists. This is a war, not a policing action with trials to be held for each and every terrorist we come across.

As usual, you ignore the part which shoots your argument in the ass...

<blockquote>As for torture itself, any information secured by such means is inadmissible in any court of law because was a) secured through coercion and, b) Such evidence is unreliable. <b><i>Torture does little more than produce false confessions. Good HUMINT and SIGINT will provice far better and more reliable intel than torture ever has or ever will</i></b>.</blockquote>

Torture produces little in the way of actionable, let alone reliable intel. But you really don't want to hear that, now do you.

<blockquote><b>Does the U.S. lose valuable information if torture is prohibited?</b>

Torture is as likely to yield false information as it is to yield the truth. Cesare Beccaria, the eighteenth century philosopher whose critique of torture remains influential today, observed that when a person is tortured, the "impression of pain…may increase to such a degree, that, occupying the mind entirely, it will compel the sufferer to use the shortest method of freeing himself from torment…[H]e will accuse himself of crimes of which he is innocent." Beccaria also pointed out the problem of using torture to discover the accused's accomplices: "Will not the man who [under torture falsely] accuses himself yet more readily accuse others?" [Beccaria, Cesare, Of Crimes and Punishments. (15 Nov. 2001).] . Contemporary law enforcement professionals concur. Oliver Ravel, former deputy director of the FBI, has stated that force is not effective: "people will even admit they killed their grandmother, just to stop the beatings." Indeed, the unreliability of forced confessions was one of the principal reasons that U.S. courts originally prohibited their use.

The prohibition on torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading conduct does not leave the government helpless before terrorists. Convictions in recent cases involving terrorism show that investigators currently have the means and legal methods to acquire the evidence necessary for successful prosecutions. - <a href=http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/11/TortureQandA.htm#prohibited>Human Rights Watch</a></blockquote>

[theHawk]

As usual, you ignore the part which shoots your argument in the ass...

<blockquote>As for torture itself, any information secured by such means is inadmissible in any court of law because was a) secured through coercion and, b) Such evidence is unreliable. <b><i>Torture does little more than produce false confessions. Good HUMINT and SIGINT will provice far better and more reliable intel than torture ever has or ever will</i></b>.</blockquote>

Wrong sir, its your opinion that it only produces false confessions. I'm not saying it would work all the time, but it should be an option because it could very well work.

[stang56k]

I could really care less what international laws say about torture. In today's world we need to leave all option on the table. We should revoke all these stupid treaties because all they end up doing is tying our hands behind our back.

Would you want a terrorist attack to be carried out on US soil because some law stops us from preventing it? We all know that any Presdient, Republican or Democrat, will use torture to extract intell in a dire situation.

The only terroist I see is sitting in the White House.