Physicians group accuses CIA of testing torture techniques on detainees - latimes.com
I only wish I could be surprised by this..... There's only one way to determine the truth and that's to pursue these findings for what they are - evidence of the possibility of a crime. Only then will we know if there is, in fact, anything even remotely resembling real courage or justice left in our government, our country, and our society. Only a tyrant tortures, and only an amoral culture condones it no matter the supposed reasons or justification.
Showing posts with label torture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label torture. Show all posts
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Commonwealth Club of California: Torture Touches Everybody#links
Commonwealth Club of California: Torture Touches Everybody#links
This erudite review of the "moral hazards" of the Bush administration, as well as what is now expected from President Obama - and how he's already failing to demonstrate his commitment to the rhetoric that helped to get him elected - was one of the best hours I spent in at least the last week.
Will illegal actions be tolerated at the highest levels of government?
Will this administration turn its head and simply "look forward"?
If waterboarding was considered a crime...
....worth court-marshaling U.S. soldiers who did it to Filipino guerrillas
....the U.S. could sentence a Japanese army officer in 1947 to 15 years of hard labor to for waterboarding a U.S. citizen, and
....the U.S. military could court-marshal 2 soldiers for in 1965 after pictures of them waterboarding Vietcong were published,
then how is that waterboarding can be defended today by Cheney and his supporters?
And why is there hesitation by Obama to call for a vigorous investigation to uncover those guilty of authoring, authorizing, *and* committing such atrocities has not already begun?
What does it mean if the U.S. government has over 2000 - yes, two thousand - photographs that possibly depict torture authorized by the Bush administration?
Will this president bring real change to the way in which our government functions and how the office of the president affects our values and ethics, and will it be enough to make a real difference?
This erudite review of the "moral hazards" of the Bush administration, as well as what is now expected from President Obama - and how he's already failing to demonstrate his commitment to the rhetoric that helped to get him elected - was one of the best hours I spent in at least the last week.
Will illegal actions be tolerated at the highest levels of government?
Will this administration turn its head and simply "look forward"?
If waterboarding was considered a crime...
....worth court-marshaling U.S. soldiers who did it to Filipino guerrillas
....the U.S. could sentence a Japanese army officer in 1947 to 15 years of hard labor to for waterboarding a U.S. citizen, and
....the U.S. military could court-marshal 2 soldiers for in 1965 after pictures of them waterboarding Vietcong were published,
then how is that waterboarding can be defended today by Cheney and his supporters?
And why is there hesitation by Obama to call for a vigorous investigation to uncover those guilty of authoring, authorizing, *and* committing such atrocities has not already begun?
What does it mean if the U.S. government has over 2000 - yes, two thousand - photographs that possibly depict torture authorized by the Bush administration?
Will this president bring real change to the way in which our government functions and how the office of the president affects our values and ethics, and will it be enough to make a real difference?
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Cheney on Torture
I suggest listening to this news program and the Cheney interview video at:
http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/05/cheney-v-obama
Here's what I did as a result of hearing this. You can decide for yourself what you do.
When I listened to this, I started (and am still) thinking about the implications all of this has on our country.
It raised questions for me like....
....What does this say about a populace who elects - and even more painfully, about those who continue to support - leaders like Cheney?
....What does it say about a political party and, with apologies, about those who support that party if he's considered one of its leaders?
....What does his position on torture say about him and those who agree with him as human beings?
....What does this do to the legitimacy and aspirations of his political party as the self-proclaimed standard bearer of such noble ideals as family values and big tent politics?
....What affects will we see happen to our collective morals and on our laws from even having a debate about the merits of torture?
....What is all of this politicization of torture having on our self-image as a society, as well as the view the rest of the world has about our legitimacy as a global economic, social, moral and political power?
Here's how what I see as Cheney's strategy for now being front-and-center.
He wants to.....
....try to rewrite history in order to protect his own legacy and the legacy of the last 8 years
(I believe it's way too late for that.)
He wants to.....
....try to frame the current discussion in terms of some perverse return on investment for torture
(As if America can do whatever it likes, including torture, if that's what it was and even though it's illegal, because of what we supposedly learned and can learn in the future about threats to America.)
He wants to.....
....do what he can to try and protect himself from prosecution
(I think and hope that his actions now will actually serve just the opposite purpose and help to secure a conviction for a crime which I personally believe he's guilty of committing.)
He wants to.....
....move the Republican party even further to the extreme right by saying things like Rush represents the Republican party more so than Collin Powell
(I think anyone who is a Republican should be very concerned politically about this one. If you're not careful, the party is going to be left with nothing but angry Bible thumpers and fliers of the Stars and Bars being led around by their collective noses by the wealthy oligarchy, present company excluded, of course.)
All of Cheney's words and deeds just reinforce my belief that he's completely out of touch with thoughtful, ordinary citizens. Frankly, I think he's one of the most reprehensible human beings ever to have walked the planet and unquestionably walking the planet today. He is, in my opinion, totally absent of the slightest shred of legitimacy as a leader and is the absolute epitome - along with people like Limbaugh, Rove, and yes, bin Laden - of an ugly political creature intent on self-preservation and power usurpation based solely on the fomentation of hatred and division.
He and his junior running mate, W, tricked this country twice. (Well, "stole" elections by some accounts.) We really shouldn't let him or them trick us again.
I think it's time for us as a democratic citizenry to rise up and to admit that we made a mistake electing him and W to 2 terms (if you can call them elections) and that those elected leaders, intentionally or unintentionally, may have violated laws. (It's ok to admit mistakes were made. I was once totally pro-business and leaned to the right on economic and fiscal policy issues. Life has changed my mind about a great many things, and I regret the mistakes I have made in the past like voting twice for Ross Perot.)
When it comes to the question of the legalities of policy and torture we need to let - hell, demand - that Congress and the courts investigate and decide the matter.
Cheney has publicly admitted to authorizing procedures which, by many definitions, are torture. It's time for a sincere and complete investigation into what he and others in the Bush administration did when it came to policy decisions about interrogation techniques and if any of them can be considered to be torture.
My own personal opinion about the "ROI" arguments Cheney or anyone else thinks can be made are absolutely without merit. They are a dodge; a red herring; an attempt to reframe the discussion in order to obfuscate us about the fact that torture is illegal no matter what the outcome.
Certainly I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me the way our society determines guilt or innocence is to first determine if suspicions and facts warrant investigations. I think they do in this case. If the investigation leads somewhere, courts have to be petitioned to issue subpoenas. People are questioned. Warrants for arrest are issued if it appears someone has committed a crime. We assume innocence first and give the accused their day in court - something we as Americans I think like to call habeas corpus but which the Bush administration denied to citizen and non-citizen alike whenever it suited them. If the prosecution convinces a judge and/or jury of the guilt of the accused - and in this case, regrettably, that is likely to include a re-examination of the definition of torture, but so be it - then those who authorized and committed the crime need to be punished.
So, if Cheney is so convinced that he and the administration are innocent of the crime of torture, then he should embrace - even demand - that an investigation begin to clear him and his compatriots of even the slightest hint of guilt. This notion of releasing memos about the value of torture is just another dodge. He's trying to make the "torture ROI" argument. Go ahead and release them, I say. I expect that rational people will look at them and conclude that we did, indeed, commit torture and that torture can never be justified by a peaceful and civil society regardless of the intelligence that is claimed to have been extracted.
What we as human beings - and especially as Americans - cannot and should not condone or tolerate is whether the "torture ROI" justified any decisions or actions if they are determined to be torture. That's like saying I'm innocent of the crime of bank robbery because I used the money to feed my kids. Bank robbery is still a crime no matter how supposedly noble the intent or desired outcomes.
Now Cheney and his supporters want to have a debate about the MERITS of torture?!?!?
Talk about relativism!!! Watch out you Republicans - it's starting to look like you're losing your moral compass and abandoning the black-and-white-right-and-wrong view of the world! ;-)
-----
"For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic."
John F. Kennedy, Yale Commencement address, 1962 (http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03Yale06111962.htm)
Blog: http://didyoucheckfirst.blogspot.com/
Saturday, May 2, 2009
To torture or not to torture....there's no question and only one answer
So a friend asks me the big red herring "what if" question that presumably justifies torture:
"(I am) in charge of interrogation of this suspect named Osamabama Bin Laden. He has been captured and is boasting, backed by other evidence sources, that his group will detonate a nuclear device in a large American city in 24 hours. He absolutely knows the details. If you f*** this up, millions of Americans will die, not 3 thousand."
Here's my response......
First and foremost, I'm not an expert on interrogation tactics. I doubt that anyone reading this is, so none of us are qualified to make decisions about what to do in this situation.
What is absolutely certain is that torture is illegal, immoral, unethical, and according to experts, completely ineffective. I offer the following which do a far better job than I ever could in making the case against torture:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html
http://terrorism.about.com/od/issuestrends/a/TortureTerror2.htm
Now for my opinions.
Torture is barbaric and something that civilized people do not condone or engage in. As for the scenario you offer, not only is it totally debunked in the above, all I can really say is, "Oh brother." ;-)
You've presented classic fear-mongering and red herring material. I'm not trying to be insulting, but I see this kind of argument as pure drivel. It seems to me to be meant purely to sway the unsophisticated, uninformed, and uneducated. It's served up on daily basis by the likes of el Rushbo, Doyle, Hannity, Coulter, Robertson, and every other right-wing, war-mongering, xenophobic, neo-con, nut-job mouthpiece who either is already working at or auditioning for a spot on Fox, EIB, or CBN.
Ok, I admit that that's pretty harsh, but it sums it up for me.
The basic premise of your scenario is like most everything else that comes from the above sources; ridiculous in the extreme. Let me make sure I have this: So we capture a terrorist and they start playing "nanny-nanny-boo-boo" about a pending nuclear detonation? Come on.
Even if this were remotely plausible, do you really think that someone capable of being involved in such a despicable act is going to all of the sudden tearfully and truthfully confess because we waterboard them, connect a car battery to his scrotum, or whatever it is good Christian soldiers in the U.S. intelligence community were told was ok to do by the Bush administration and their appointed thugs?
Maybe you can answer this question for me. If torture is ok and so damned effective, how come the CIA voluntarily stop doing it in 2005?
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/22/timeline-released-senate-shows-condoleezza-rice-okd-waterboarding/)
(Note that this comes from Fox News, so I don't think you can accuse me of offering some biased liberal media source. If you want to accuse me of offering a biased news source, that would be correct, but it's just not a liberal bias in this case!)
The big mistake - the red herring - of your scenario and any other scenario like it that is used to try to justify torture is the belief that:
a) you can predict how people will respond to torture,
b) everyone responds the same and,
c) some degree of normal and rational thinking and behavior can be expected from someone who is clearly neither if they are a terrorist.
You can't expect, for instance, that a terrorist would respond to the possibility or reality of torture the same as, say, you or I would. Let's not forget, you're presumably referring to people famous for wanting to die for their cause so they can get to heaven and the 57 naked virgins or whatever the big reward is they expect to get in some after life. They aren't going to be scared or tortured into telling you anything of value. Hell, I'm betting they're sitting there thinking, "Bring on those jumper cables, you capitalist dogs! I'm going to spend eternity getting laid!"
No matter what you do to them, they aren't going to tell you where the bomb is planted. And please don't try to say that it's at least worth a try.
No matter what - and I mean, no matter what - the minute we stoop to torture we lose every shred of decency, integrity, legitimacy, and whatever moral high ground we think we can stake a claim to as a democracy and a nation of laws. When we torture - and it seems painfully obvious that we have - we have become a terrorist nation.
Let me say that again. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft, Gonzales, and the rest of that administration turned the United States into a terrorist nation. The only way to rectify that is to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute, try, and punish those responsible for the policy, authority, and commission of torture.
And don't give me that, "The security community is in shambles and looking over their shoulder now," bullshit, either. The men and women working in the intelligence community are not without morals, ethics, and decency, too. Yes, there will be some who will burn for this and they should. But I think the message that it sends will be embraced and well-received by the overwhelming majority of the military and intelligence communities as confirmation that we are a nation of principles and of laws. No Nuremberg defense should be allowed. Agents who were involved in "extraordinary interrogations" knew they were doing wrong. A memo from the boss doesn't make it right.
So let me ask....
Do you really think that there's a difference in the ethics, morality and legality of an act based upon who commits it? If it's wrong for our citizens to be tortured then isn't it wrong for us to torture?
Do you really believe in your heart of hearts that we have some sort of ......I hate to use this term, but I know it has meaning for some of you... God-given right to torture someone? Are we somehow above everyone else? Can we claim to hold some special status by which we're exempt from the same standards as everyone else? What would Jesus do? (Had to throw that one in.)
Where does it end? How do we look future generations in the eye and tell them that we were good people while we condoned torture? How does hatred, violence, and war ever have a chance of being swept from our lives if we as citizens of the United States of America condone torture?
Have we not evolved at least culturally to a point yet where such actions are universally condemned? Have we learned nothing from the Spanish Inquisition, Salem witch trials, the Armenian genocide, Nazi concentration camps, the Rwandan genocide, and the genocide that's going on in Sudan?
Doesn't look like it, does it? And our chances don't get any better if we as citizens of the U.S. give our government officials a pass on torture.
If we're going to continue to think and behave like barbarians, then we shouldn't act surprised or be repulsed the next time a hate group kills a gay man for being gay or drags a black man behind their pick up truck in Texas because he's black. Don't forget, the Klan used to hang Catholics, too.
If we don't demand the investigation and prosecution of government officials who approved torture, then we may as well embrace hate groups and bring back public hangings....maybe beheadings could be started, too. Hell, let's start torturing suspected terrorists in the town square - make sure to bring the kiddies and make a day of it!
In a democracy, it's up to us to decide what our society looks like. We elect our leaders. We need to hold them accountable. If we stay silent on this issue of torture, we send the message that we approve and support torture and that tells the nut-job fringe elements everywhere in the world that ours is a society that has truly declined to a state of barbarism.
I know some of you won't accept this perspective, either, but what if the shoe were on the other foot? Let's pretend that you're General Bruce in charge of the North Korean secret service. You've just captured an American intelligence officer. You're convinced he has knowledge of a pending air strike on a nuclear enrichment site. He's not talking and you know that that air strike is coming. Your wife and kids live close enough that they and lots of your family are sure to be killed along with lots (how do you define that?) of your fellow citizens.
Same basic scenario, just different uniforms.
I'm not willing to throw away one of the most basic principles of this nation - that we are a nation of laws that apply equally to everyone.
I'm not willing to surrender so much authority to elected officials and their appointees that they no longer feel accountable to me, my fellow citizens, and the citizens of the world. If laws were broken, then investigations are called for.
Hey, if it was so damned important to Republicans that the world know if Slick Willy lied about his affair with Monica, then I dare say that the question of torture is exponentially more important and worth investigating.
I'm not willing to allow the moral and ethical foundations of this great country, its history, and the heritage we leave to future generations to be weakened by saying, "It's ok to torture if we think it's necessary because, hell, we're Americans and we can do whatever we think is best and the rest of the world can go f*** itself."
So, no, I don't torture even if the guy sitting in the chair is thumbing his nose about a nuclear device. Torturing him won't get the information needed AND IT'S AGAINST THE LAW!!!!!!
Anyone wishing to add their voice to the cause should consider visiting www.IndictBushNow.org
"(I am) in charge of interrogation of this suspect named Osamabama Bin Laden. He has been captured and is boasting, backed by other evidence sources, that his group will detonate a nuclear device in a large American city in 24 hours. He absolutely knows the details. If you f*** this up, millions of Americans will die, not 3 thousand."
Here's my response......
First and foremost, I'm not an expert on interrogation tactics. I doubt that anyone reading this is, so none of us are qualified to make decisions about what to do in this situation.
What is absolutely certain is that torture is illegal, immoral, unethical, and according to experts, completely ineffective. I offer the following which do a far better job than I ever could in making the case against torture:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html
http://terrorism.about.com/od/issuestrends/a/TortureTerror2.htm
Now for my opinions.
Torture is barbaric and something that civilized people do not condone or engage in. As for the scenario you offer, not only is it totally debunked in the above, all I can really say is, "Oh brother." ;-)
You've presented classic fear-mongering and red herring material. I'm not trying to be insulting, but I see this kind of argument as pure drivel. It seems to me to be meant purely to sway the unsophisticated, uninformed, and uneducated. It's served up on daily basis by the likes of el Rushbo, Doyle, Hannity, Coulter, Robertson, and every other right-wing, war-mongering, xenophobic, neo-con, nut-job mouthpiece who either is already working at or auditioning for a spot on Fox, EIB, or CBN.
Ok, I admit that that's pretty harsh, but it sums it up for me.
The basic premise of your scenario is like most everything else that comes from the above sources; ridiculous in the extreme. Let me make sure I have this: So we capture a terrorist and they start playing "nanny-nanny-boo-boo" about a pending nuclear detonation? Come on.
Even if this were remotely plausible, do you really think that someone capable of being involved in such a despicable act is going to all of the sudden tearfully and truthfully confess because we waterboard them, connect a car battery to his scrotum, or whatever it is good Christian soldiers in the U.S. intelligence community were told was ok to do by the Bush administration and their appointed thugs?
Maybe you can answer this question for me. If torture is ok and so damned effective, how come the CIA voluntarily stop doing it in 2005?
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/22/timeline-released-senate-shows-condoleezza-rice-okd-waterboarding/)
(Note that this comes from Fox News, so I don't think you can accuse me of offering some biased liberal media source. If you want to accuse me of offering a biased news source, that would be correct, but it's just not a liberal bias in this case!)
The big mistake - the red herring - of your scenario and any other scenario like it that is used to try to justify torture is the belief that:
a) you can predict how people will respond to torture,
b) everyone responds the same and,
c) some degree of normal and rational thinking and behavior can be expected from someone who is clearly neither if they are a terrorist.
You can't expect, for instance, that a terrorist would respond to the possibility or reality of torture the same as, say, you or I would. Let's not forget, you're presumably referring to people famous for wanting to die for their cause so they can get to heaven and the 57 naked virgins or whatever the big reward is they expect to get in some after life. They aren't going to be scared or tortured into telling you anything of value. Hell, I'm betting they're sitting there thinking, "Bring on those jumper cables, you capitalist dogs! I'm going to spend eternity getting laid!"
No matter what you do to them, they aren't going to tell you where the bomb is planted. And please don't try to say that it's at least worth a try.
No matter what - and I mean, no matter what - the minute we stoop to torture we lose every shred of decency, integrity, legitimacy, and whatever moral high ground we think we can stake a claim to as a democracy and a nation of laws. When we torture - and it seems painfully obvious that we have - we have become a terrorist nation.
Let me say that again. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft, Gonzales, and the rest of that administration turned the United States into a terrorist nation. The only way to rectify that is to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute, try, and punish those responsible for the policy, authority, and commission of torture.
And don't give me that, "The security community is in shambles and looking over their shoulder now," bullshit, either. The men and women working in the intelligence community are not without morals, ethics, and decency, too. Yes, there will be some who will burn for this and they should. But I think the message that it sends will be embraced and well-received by the overwhelming majority of the military and intelligence communities as confirmation that we are a nation of principles and of laws. No Nuremberg defense should be allowed. Agents who were involved in "extraordinary interrogations" knew they were doing wrong. A memo from the boss doesn't make it right.
So let me ask....
Do you really think that there's a difference in the ethics, morality and legality of an act based upon who commits it? If it's wrong for our citizens to be tortured then isn't it wrong for us to torture?
Do you really believe in your heart of hearts that we have some sort of ......I hate to use this term, but I know it has meaning for some of you... God-given right to torture someone? Are we somehow above everyone else? Can we claim to hold some special status by which we're exempt from the same standards as everyone else? What would Jesus do? (Had to throw that one in.)
Where does it end? How do we look future generations in the eye and tell them that we were good people while we condoned torture? How does hatred, violence, and war ever have a chance of being swept from our lives if we as citizens of the United States of America condone torture?
Have we not evolved at least culturally to a point yet where such actions are universally condemned? Have we learned nothing from the Spanish Inquisition, Salem witch trials, the Armenian genocide, Nazi concentration camps, the Rwandan genocide, and the genocide that's going on in Sudan?
Doesn't look like it, does it? And our chances don't get any better if we as citizens of the U.S. give our government officials a pass on torture.
If we're going to continue to think and behave like barbarians, then we shouldn't act surprised or be repulsed the next time a hate group kills a gay man for being gay or drags a black man behind their pick up truck in Texas because he's black. Don't forget, the Klan used to hang Catholics, too.
If we don't demand the investigation and prosecution of government officials who approved torture, then we may as well embrace hate groups and bring back public hangings....maybe beheadings could be started, too. Hell, let's start torturing suspected terrorists in the town square - make sure to bring the kiddies and make a day of it!
In a democracy, it's up to us to decide what our society looks like. We elect our leaders. We need to hold them accountable. If we stay silent on this issue of torture, we send the message that we approve and support torture and that tells the nut-job fringe elements everywhere in the world that ours is a society that has truly declined to a state of barbarism.
I know some of you won't accept this perspective, either, but what if the shoe were on the other foot? Let's pretend that you're General Bruce in charge of the North Korean secret service. You've just captured an American intelligence officer. You're convinced he has knowledge of a pending air strike on a nuclear enrichment site. He's not talking and you know that that air strike is coming. Your wife and kids live close enough that they and lots of your family are sure to be killed along with lots (how do you define that?) of your fellow citizens.
Same basic scenario, just different uniforms.
I'm not willing to throw away one of the most basic principles of this nation - that we are a nation of laws that apply equally to everyone.
I'm not willing to surrender so much authority to elected officials and their appointees that they no longer feel accountable to me, my fellow citizens, and the citizens of the world. If laws were broken, then investigations are called for.
Hey, if it was so damned important to Republicans that the world know if Slick Willy lied about his affair with Monica, then I dare say that the question of torture is exponentially more important and worth investigating.
I'm not willing to allow the moral and ethical foundations of this great country, its history, and the heritage we leave to future generations to be weakened by saying, "It's ok to torture if we think it's necessary because, hell, we're Americans and we can do whatever we think is best and the rest of the world can go f*** itself."
So, no, I don't torture even if the guy sitting in the chair is thumbing his nose about a nuclear device. Torturing him won't get the information needed AND IT'S AGAINST THE LAW!!!!!!
Anyone wishing to add their voice to the cause should consider visiting www.IndictBushNow.org
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Nothing Justifies Torture
Nothing can ever justify torture. Nothing.
No amount of intelligence, no supposed "what if it could save millions by torturing one" scenario. Nothing.
Nothing obtained by such actions could ever wash away the moral and ethical stains done to our society, our culture, our integrity, and our reputation as a country and as individuals.
We are presumably a nation of laws. While torture in and of itself is heinous and despicable enough, if we ever hope to be able to collectively look future generations in the eye and at ourselves in the mirror with any dignity, honesty, and with a clear conscious then at the very least the people who led and instructed agencies to use such methods must be held accountable for breaking the law.
What law?
On October 27, 1990, the U.S. Senate ratified Treaty Number 100-20, formally titled "The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by unanimous agreement of the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and signed by the United States on April 18, 1988." (see http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html#CAT, http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html and attached U.S. Library of Congress treaty document).
Violating a treaty is unlawful. If we never even address the morality of the issue, people may have broken the law.
And this can't be some Lynndie England charade, either, where only the lowest level agent is investigated as some "lone wolf". I don't accept the "Nuremberg defense" for agents, and we certainly can never allow those at the very top - all the way to the White House - to be above any laws of this nation.
Morally, no 'end' can ever be used as justification for the 'means.' I would think that would be especially true in a country supposedly built on Christian values. I, for one, hope the CIA takes Cheney up on his requests to release whatever was obtained from these methods. It will prove once and for all his role and role of others in the leadership that sanctioned torture, and that whatever was gleaned from those abhorrent acts cannot and will never justify the torturing of a human being.
If we don't express our outrage now then when and over what?
If we remain silent and don't hold people accountable, then how far away are we from our own beheadings in the town square because we suspect someone knows something we want to know?
----- Forwarded Message -----From: "George Soros"To: "greg russak" Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 4:25:26 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada EasternSubject: Accountability for torture
.MsgBody-text, .MsgBody-text * { font: 10pt monospace; }
Dear Friends and Colleagues:
This morning a coalition of human rights groups and other organizations launched an appeal to the President to establish a commission of inquiry to examine and report publicly on America's use of torture in the period since September 11, 2001. Please sign the petition and forward this email to your friends, family, and colleagues.
http://commissiononaccountability.org/
Regards,
Michael Vachon
Office of George Soros
--------------------
The Library of Congress > THOMAS Home > Treaties > Search Results
Result for Treaties Search Result 1 of 2
Previous Record Next Record Search Results New Search Help
Treaty Number: 100-20 Transmitted: May 20, 1988 Short Title: CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT Type: Human Rights Countries: n/a Formal Title: The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by unanimous agreement of the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and signed by the United States on April 18, 1988. Senate Executive Report(s): 101-30 Source: United Nations
Legislative Actions Floor Action: May 20, 1988 - Received in the Senate. Floor Action: May 23, 1988 - Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations by unanimous consent.
Committee Action: July 19, 1990 - Committee on Foreign Relations. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee Action: January 30, 1990 - Committee on Foreign Relations. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 101-718. Floor Action: July 19, 1990 - Reported by Mr. Pell, Committee on Foreign Relations, without printed report. With a resolution of advice and consent to ratification with reservations, understandings and declarations. Floor Action: August 30, 1990 - Printed report filed (Ex. Rept. 101-30_ together with additional views. Floor Action: October 27, 1990 - S.AMDT.3200: Proposed by Senator Pell. Floor Action: October 27, 1990 - S.AMDT.3200: Amendment SP 3200 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote. Floor Action: October 27, 1990 - S.AMDT.3201: Proposed by Senator Pell. Floor Action: October 27, 1990 - S.AMDT.3201: Amendment SP 3201 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote. Floor Action: October 27, 1990 - S.AMDT.3202: Proposed by Senator Pell. Floor Action: October 27, 1990 - S.AMDT.3202: Amendment SP 3202 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote. Floor Action: October 27, 1990 - S.AMDT.3203: Proposed by Senator Pell. Floor Action: October 27, 1990 - S.AMDT.3203: Amendment SP 3203 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote. Floor Action: October 27, 1990 - Resolution agreed to in Senate with amendments by Division. Resolution: TEXT OF RESOLUTION OF ADVICE AND CONSENT TO RATIFICATION AS REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS:@Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), #That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by unanimous agreement of the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and signed by the United States on April 18, 1988,Provided that:I. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following reservations:(1) That the United States shall implement the Convention to the extent that the Federal Government exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered therein; to the extent that constituent units exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the Federal Government shall take appropriate measures, to the end that the competent authorities of the constituent units may take appropriate measures for the fulfillment of this Convention.(2) That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under Article 16 to prevent "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," only insofar as the term "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.(3) That pursuant to Article 30(2) the United States declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 30(1), but reserves the right specifically to agree to follow this or any other procedure for arbitration in a particular case.II. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following understandings, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention:(1) (a) That with reference to Article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture , an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from: (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.(b) That the United States understands that the definition of torture in Article 1 is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender's custody or physical control.(c) That with reference to Article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that "sanctions" includes judically-imposed sanctions and other enforcement actions authorized by United States law or by judicial interpretation of such law provided that such sanctions or actions are not clearly prohibited under international law.(d) That with reference to Article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that the term"acquiescence" requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture , have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.(e) That with reference to Article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that noncompliance with applicable legal procedural standards does no per se constitute torture .(2) That the United States understands the phrase, "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture ," as used in Article 3 of the Convention, to mean "if it is more likely than not that h e would be tortured."(3) That it is the understanding of the United States that Article 14 requires a State Party to provide a private right of action for damages only for acts of torture committed in territory under the jurisdiction of that State Party.(4) That the United States understands that international law does not prohibit the death penalty, and does not consider this Convention to restrict or prohibit the United States from applying the death penalty consistent with the Fifth, Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, including any constitutional period of confinement prior to the imposition of the death penalty.III. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following declarations:(1) That the United States declares that the provisions of Articles 1 through 16 of the Convention are not self-executing.(2) That the United States declares, pursuant to Article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. It is the understanding of the United States that, pursuant to the above mentioned article, such communications shall be accepted and processed only if they come from a State Party which has made a similar declaration. Index Terms : 100-20 CRUEL TREATMENT DEGRADING TREATMENT INHUMAN TREATMENT PUNISHMENT TORTURE Control Number: 100TD00020
Previous Record Next Record Search Results New Search Help
THOMAS Home Contact Accessibility Legal FirstGov
No amount of intelligence, no supposed "what if it could save millions by torturing one" scenario. Nothing.
Nothing obtained by such actions could ever wash away the moral and ethical stains done to our society, our culture, our integrity, and our reputation as a country and as individuals.
We are presumably a nation of laws. While torture in and of itself is heinous and despicable enough, if we ever hope to be able to collectively look future generations in the eye and at ourselves in the mirror with any dignity, honesty, and with a clear conscious then at the very least the people who led and instructed agencies to use such methods must be held accountable for breaking the law.
What law?
On October 27, 1990, the U.S. Senate ratified Treaty Number 100-20, formally titled "The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by unanimous agreement of the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and signed by the United States on April 18, 1988." (see http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html#CAT, http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html and attached U.S. Library of Congress treaty document).
Violating a treaty is unlawful. If we never even address the morality of the issue, people may have broken the law.
And this can't be some Lynndie England charade, either, where only the lowest level agent is investigated as some "lone wolf". I don't accept the "Nuremberg defense" for agents, and we certainly can never allow those at the very top - all the way to the White House - to be above any laws of this nation.
Morally, no 'end' can ever be used as justification for the 'means.' I would think that would be especially true in a country supposedly built on Christian values. I, for one, hope the CIA takes Cheney up on his requests to release whatever was obtained from these methods. It will prove once and for all his role and role of others in the leadership that sanctioned torture, and that whatever was gleaned from those abhorrent acts cannot and will never justify the torturing of a human being.
If we don't express our outrage now then when and over what?
If we remain silent and don't hold people accountable, then how far away are we from our own beheadings in the town square because we suspect someone knows something we want to know?
----- Forwarded Message -----From: "George Soros"
.MsgBody-text, .MsgBody-text * { font: 10pt monospace; }
Dear Friends and Colleagues:
This morning a coalition of human rights groups and other organizations launched an appeal to the President to establish a commission of inquiry to examine and report publicly on America's use of torture in the period since September 11, 2001. Please sign the petition and forward this email to your friends, family, and colleagues.
http://commissiononaccountability.org/
Regards,
Michael Vachon
Office of George Soros
--------------------
The Library of Congress > THOMAS Home > Treaties > Search Results
Result for Treaties Search Result 1 of 2
Previous Record Next Record Search Results New Search Help
Treaty Number: 100-20 Transmitted: May 20, 1988 Short Title: CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT Type: Human Rights Countries: n/a Formal Title: The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by unanimous agreement of the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and signed by the United States on April 18, 1988. Senate Executive Report(s): 101-30 Source: United Nations
Legislative Actions Floor Action: May 20, 1988 - Received in the Senate. Floor Action: May 23, 1988 - Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations by unanimous consent.
Committee Action: July 19, 1990 - Committee on Foreign Relations. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee Action: January 30, 1990 - Committee on Foreign Relations. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 101-718. Floor Action: July 19, 1990 - Reported by Mr. Pell, Committee on Foreign Relations, without printed report. With a resolution of advice and consent to ratification with reservations, understandings and declarations. Floor Action: August 30, 1990 - Printed report filed (Ex. Rept. 101-30_ together with additional views. Floor Action: October 27, 1990 - S.AMDT.3200: Proposed by Senator Pell. Floor Action: October 27, 1990 - S.AMDT.3200: Amendment SP 3200 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote. Floor Action: October 27, 1990 - S.AMDT.3201: Proposed by Senator Pell. Floor Action: October 27, 1990 - S.AMDT.3201: Amendment SP 3201 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote. Floor Action: October 27, 1990 - S.AMDT.3202: Proposed by Senator Pell. Floor Action: October 27, 1990 - S.AMDT.3202: Amendment SP 3202 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote. Floor Action: October 27, 1990 - S.AMDT.3203: Proposed by Senator Pell. Floor Action: October 27, 1990 - S.AMDT.3203: Amendment SP 3203 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote. Floor Action: October 27, 1990 - Resolution agreed to in Senate with amendments by Division. Resolution: TEXT OF RESOLUTION OF ADVICE AND CONSENT TO RATIFICATION AS REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS:@Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), #That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by unanimous agreement of the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and signed by the United States on April 18, 1988,Provided that:I. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following reservations:(1) That the United States shall implement the Convention to the extent that the Federal Government exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered therein; to the extent that constituent units exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the Federal Government shall take appropriate measures, to the end that the competent authorities of the constituent units may take appropriate measures for the fulfillment of this Convention.(2) That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under Article 16 to prevent "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," only insofar as the term "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.(3) That pursuant to Article 30(2) the United States declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 30(1), but reserves the right specifically to agree to follow this or any other procedure for arbitration in a particular case.II. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following understandings, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention:(1) (a) That with reference to Article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture , an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from: (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.(b) That the United States understands that the definition of torture in Article 1 is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender's custody or physical control.(c) That with reference to Article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that "sanctions" includes judically-imposed sanctions and other enforcement actions authorized by United States law or by judicial interpretation of such law provided that such sanctions or actions are not clearly prohibited under international law.(d) That with reference to Article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that the term"acquiescence" requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture , have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.(e) That with reference to Article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that noncompliance with applicable legal procedural standards does no per se constitute torture .(2) That the United States understands the phrase, "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture ," as used in Article 3 of the Convention, to mean "if it is more likely than not that h e would be tortured."(3) That it is the understanding of the United States that Article 14 requires a State Party to provide a private right of action for damages only for acts of torture committed in territory under the jurisdiction of that State Party.(4) That the United States understands that international law does not prohibit the death penalty, and does not consider this Convention to restrict or prohibit the United States from applying the death penalty consistent with the Fifth, Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, including any constitutional period of confinement prior to the imposition of the death penalty.III. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following declarations:(1) That the United States declares that the provisions of Articles 1 through 16 of the Convention are not self-executing.(2) That the United States declares, pursuant to Article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. It is the understanding of the United States that, pursuant to the above mentioned article, such communications shall be accepted and processed only if they come from a State Party which has made a similar declaration. Index Terms : 100-20 CRUEL TREATMENT DEGRADING TREATMENT INHUMAN TREATMENT PUNISHMENT TORTURE Control Number: 100TD00020
Previous Record Next Record Search Results New Search Help
THOMAS Home Contact Accessibility Legal FirstGov
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)