PDA

View Full Version : Republican candidates and interrogation techniques


Apoleb
Nov 6th, 2007, 12:15 AM
Interesting article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/us/politics/03torture.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

--

3 Top Republican Candidates Take a Hard Line on the Interrogation of Detainees function



By MARC SANTORA (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/marc_santora/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: November 3, 2007
A central tenet of every leading Republican candidate’s campaign for president is one simple and powerful idea: I alone can best defend the United States from the threat of terrorism.
Skip to next paragraph (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/us/politics/03torture.html?_r=1&oref=slogin#secondParagraph) http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/11/03/us/romney190.jpg Eric Thayer for The New York Times
Mitt Romney, in Iowa Friday, has said he would double the size of the Guantánamo prison.







And in recent weeks, three candidates, Rudolph W. Giuliani (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/rudolph_w_giuliani/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Mitt Romney (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/mitt_romney/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Fred D. Thompson (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/fred_thompson/index.html?inline=nyt-per), have embraced some of the more controversial policies on the treatment of those suspected of supporting terrorism, backing harsh interrogation methods and refusing to rule out the use of waterboarding, a simulated drowning technique, on detainees.
Their public statements came as the debate over whether waterboarding is torture had threatened to derail the nomination of Michael B. Mukasey (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/michael_b_mukasey/index.html?inline=nyt-per) as attorney general after he refused to call the technique illegal.
Not only do the three candidates refuse to rule out waterboarding and other techniques that have been condemned, but they also believe the American prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, needs to remain open, and they back the practice of extraordinary rendition, in which terrorism suspects are sent for questioning to other countries, including some accused of torture.
The only leading Republican candidate to condemn each of the practices outright has been Senator John McCain (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a former prisoner of war who was tortured in a North Vietnamese prison. On Friday, Mr. McCain, of Arizona, strongly criticized his rivals and cited their lack of wartime experience, saying they “chose to do other things when this nation was fighting its wars.”
Mr. Giuliani shot back, saying Mr. McCain “has never run a city, never run a state, never run a government.”
The often-unbending statements of Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Romney on detainee treatment have put them at odds even with the Bush administration, which, under intense pressure at home and abroad, has moved to curb some of the practices, and called in general terms for closing the prison at Guantánamo.
While the three candidates all condemn torture, they have been purposefully vague about what constitutes cruel and inhumane treatment.
Mr. Giuliani often frames the threat of terrorism in graphically personal terms, telling crowds that Islamic extremists “hate you” and want to come to the United States and “kill you.” In that vein, he has been perhaps the most forceful in suggesting that the president must be able to take extraordinary steps to combat terrorist threats.
“I think the president has to retain ultimate authority to be able to deal with terrorism in a way that’s different than dealing with an armed combatant from a nation state,” Mr. Giuliani said in a recent interview.
Their positions have come under fire from leading Democrats who say they unconditionally oppose torture, want Guantánamo closed and oppose rendition.
The leading Republican candidates, including Mr. McCain, have largely supported the enhanced powers granted to law enforcement authorities under the USA Patriot Act (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/usa_patriot_act/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier).
But it is on treatment of prisoners that the divisions emerge. Mr. McCain is alone among the top Republican candidates in condemning waterboarding, which has become the litmus test in gauging an openness to interrogation techniques that are widely considered torture.
Mr. Giuliani also joked about another interrogation technique, sustained sleep deprivation.
“They talk about sleep deprivation,” he said. “I mean, on that theory, I’m getting tortured running for president of the United States. That’s plain silly.”
Sustained sleep-deprivation is described in the United States Army Field Manual on Interrogation as a form of mental torture, and the practice has been ruled inhumane by the Supreme Court of Israel and the European Court of Human Rights (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/european_court_of_human_rights/index.html?inline=nyt-org).
In an interview yesterday with Albert R. Hunt on Bloomberg TV, Mr. Giuliani said: “Now, intensive questioning works. If I didn’t use intensive questioning, there would be a lot of Mafia guys running around New York right now and crime would be a lot higher in New York than it is. Intensive questioning has to be used. Torture should not be used. The line between the two is a difficult one.”
The differences between the leading Republicans on interrogation and the handling of detainees first arose in May at a debate in South Carolina, when Mr. McCain was the only candidate to condemn torture outright.
As Mr. Romney was preparing for his presidential bid, he visited Guantánamo Bay in the spring of 2006 and said he “came away with no concerns with regards to the fair and appropriate treating of these individuals.” In the May debate, Mr. Romney said he would “double Guantánamo.”
Mr. Romney has also said that in the event of an extreme terrorist threat, he would not rule out even the harshest interrogation techniques, echoing comments made by his national security adviser, Maj. Gen. James Marks, who is retired.
When the general was asked, in a 2005 interview on CNN, how far he would go if he thought he could elicit information that would save the lives of either American soldiers or civilians, he replied, “I’d stick a knife in somebody’s thigh in a heartbeat.”
Mr. Thompson has argued that there are circumstances where “you have to do what is necessary to get the information that you need.”
The stances of Mr. Thompson, Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney have drawn fire not only from leading Democrats but also from human rights groups.
“At a time when the U.S. military has denounced torture and is working hard to restore U.S. moral authority, it’s irresponsible that some presidential candidates are still suggesting that torture is O.K.,” said Jennifer Daskal, a counterterrorism expert at Human Rights Watch (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/human_rights_watch/index.html?inline=nyt-org). “Candidates appear to be pandering to peoples’ fears in a reckless attempt to win the label ‘toughest.’”
Mr. Giuliani’s views on detainee treatment seem to have hardened in recent months. For instance, last spring he said waterboarding crossed the line of what was acceptable. Last week, he pulled back from that stance.
In St. Petersburg, Fla., seven months ago, he said: “I haven’t been to Guantánamo. I can’t judge Guantánamo.”
Now, although he has still not visited Guantánamo, Mr. Giuliani says that he thinks the prison there is a critical tool. Like Mr. Romney, he focuses on the physical condition the prisoners are kept in rather than their still-undefined legal status.
Critics, however, not only condemn the conditions at Guantánamo but also find it unacceptable that the majority of detainees have been in legal limbo for more than five years, with only a handful facing formal charges.
Mr. Thompson was dismissive of such concerns when asked for his opinion at a recent campaign stop in Tampa, Fla. “I think that Guantánamo Bay is necessary,” he said. “Those who have criticized Guantánamo Bay do not come with any alternative.”
Mr. McCain said that was simply false, noting he has pushed to have the prisoners moved to the military base at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. He said they should not be treated with the same rights as American citizens, but should be afforded trials.

Apoleb
Nov 6th, 2007, 12:30 AM
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/11/03/us/politics/tortureFull.gif

kittyking
Nov 6th, 2007, 12:58 AM
Every murderer is an idiot, most of them wont even realise that they are being tortured! In most cases its nothing compared to what they did to their victims.

I'm actually a tiny bit dissopointed with Rudy's position, he seems alittle soft on them - well at least Terrorists are still afraid of him.

Donny
Nov 6th, 2007, 01:20 AM
Every murderer is an idiot, most of them wont even realise that they are being tortured! In most cases its nothing compared to what they did to their victims.

I'm actually a tiny bit dissopointed with Rudy's position, he seems alittle soft on them - well at least Terrorists are still afraid of him.

You do realize, that the people we're interrogating haven't been given the benefit of due process. Not only do we not know for sure if they are guilty or not, but they haven't been given the chance to prove that they're not guilty. Torture's unacceptable anyway.

kittyking
Nov 6th, 2007, 01:24 AM
Torture's unacceptable anyway.

Are you suggesting that we should treat them as kings and salute them as they fly a plane into the twin towers :o

Donny
Nov 6th, 2007, 01:31 AM
Are you suggesting that we should treat them as kings and salute them as they fly a plane into the twin towers :o

Are you a toddler?

We DON'T KNOW if the people we're interrogating are guilty of terrorism or not.

And the Bush administration was involved with 9/11, so I won't even get into that debate.

Pureracket
Nov 6th, 2007, 01:31 AM
You do realize, that the people we're interrogating haven't been given the benefit of due process. Not only do we not know for sure if they are guilty or not, but they haven't been given the chance to prove that they're not guilty. Torture's unacceptable anyway.Kitty is a prime example of why Non-Americans who are not even in the USA should listen/read more before they offer opinions.

kittyking
Nov 6th, 2007, 01:46 AM
Are you a toddler?

We DON'T KNOW if the people we're interrogating are guilty of terrorism or not.

And the Bush administration was involved with 9/11, so I won't even get into that debate.

The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11!!!

Only completely idiots think that he did

Its been proven by many experts all around the world how the building went down, it was due to the retards flying a plane into the building and then the foundations bending

kittyking
Nov 6th, 2007, 01:47 AM
Kitty is a prime example of why Non-Americans who are not even in the USA should listen/read more before they offer opinions.

So you think that Bush administration had something to do with 9/11 then

Do you also believe that Hurricane Katrina had something to do with his administration, or what about those wild fires :lol:

Donny
Nov 6th, 2007, 02:48 AM
The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11!!!

Only completely idiots think that he did

Its been proven by many experts all around the world how the building went down, it was due to the retards flying a plane into the building and then the foundations bending

At the very least, Bush & co. had been warned of an imminent attack, and refused to act on it in order to justify invasion of sovereign nations.

kittyking
Nov 6th, 2007, 02:50 AM
At the very least, Bush & co. had been warned of an imminent attack, and refused to act on it in order to justify invasion of sovereign nations.

:help:

Sam L
Nov 6th, 2007, 03:09 AM
At the very least, Bush & co. had been warned of an imminent attack, and refused to act on it in order to justify invasion of sovereign nations.

:help:

Your user-title should read "Property of the anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda machine".

Donny
Nov 6th, 2007, 03:22 AM
:help:

Your user-title should read "Property of the anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda machine".

Anti- American? I'm an American citizen. My parents are American citizens. My ancestors have been in America, whether enslaved or free, for the past several centuries. The family I love are Americans, the people I call my friends are Americans, the people I'm happy to serve at my job are Americans. Hell, some of the people on this forum I enjoy conversing with are Americans.


I LOVE Americans. I don't love America's policies. Novel concept, no?

And it's funny you mention Israel. Israel has racism codified in it's laws. This is abhorrent to me. I pay taxes. I do NOT want to pay taxes that will go to aid Israel and help it maintain racist policies. Does that make me anti- Israel? Perhaps.

Sam L
Nov 6th, 2007, 03:29 AM
Anti- American? I'm an American citizen. My parents are American citizens. My ancestors have been in America, whether enslaved or free, for the past several centuries. The family I love are Americans, the people I call my friends are Americans, the people I'm happy to serve at my job are Americans. Hell, some of the people on this forum I enjoy conversing with are Americans.


Oh yeah because anti-American propaganda machines are aimed at individual Americans. :lol:

Donny
Nov 6th, 2007, 03:32 AM
Oh yeah because anti-American propaganda machines are aimed at individual Americans. :lol:

Because I dislike the CIA and Bush, I'm a propagandist? Get real.

Sam L
Nov 6th, 2007, 03:37 AM
Because I dislike the CIA and Bush, I'm a propagandist? Get real.

We can't have a conversation because you don't even know what I'm talking about.

You are someone that's owned by propaganda machines that spread ideas like how the US government planned 9/11 or how it did nothing so it can get oil. If you want to be owned by them and by their tool, that's your problem, not mine. I'll just laugh at you.

This has hardly to do with being anti-Bush. I'm "anti-Bush" in many areas including gay marriage, abortion and environmental policies just to name a few.

But I'm not owned by those propaganda machines. That's the difference.

Donny
Nov 6th, 2007, 03:44 AM
We can't have a conversation because you don't even know what I'm talking about.

You are someone that's owned by propaganda machines that spread ideas like how the US government planned 9/11 or how it did nothing so it can get oil. If you want to be owned by them and by their tool, that's your problem, not mine. I'll just laugh at you.

This has hardly to do with being anti-Bush. I'm "anti-Bush" in many areas including gay marriage, abortion and environmental policies just to name a few.

But I'm not owned by those propaganda machines. That's the difference.


I'm not owned by anyone. I honestly, truly believe that the US government had some beforehand knowledge of the attacks.

And you're constant, near pathological paranoia regarding Muslim "apologists" leads one to believe that someone is influencing your thoughts and words.

Scotso
Nov 6th, 2007, 04:32 AM
We DON'T KNOW if the people we're interrogating are guilty of terrorism or not.

That's completely false, and you know it. Especially when we catch people in the act. Of course people who haven't been proven to be guilty of anything should not be tortured. But to be honest, I have absolutely no problem with the torture of known terrorists if it might help to save innocent lives.

Scotso
Nov 6th, 2007, 04:36 AM
I'm not owned by anyone. I honestly, truly believe that the US government had some beforehand knowledge of the attacks.

And you're constant, near pathological paranoia regarding Muslim "apologists" leads one to believe that someone is influencing your thoughts and words.

And believing the conspiracy theories that the US government knew of the attack beforehand isn't "pathological paranoia"? Believe me, I don't trust Bush or many of his cronies one bit... but if people in the government did know of the attack beforehand, you can bet your ass that we would know about it by now. I know there's at least one honest, decent person who would have had this information, and they would have spoken out about it. Bush is a power-hungry moronic puppet of the right wing, but I don't believe even he would sacrifice thousands of innocent American lives.

Donny
Nov 6th, 2007, 04:58 AM
That's completely false, and you know it. Especially when we catch people in the act. Of course people who haven't been proven to be guilty of anything should not be tortured. But to be honest, I have absolutely no problem with the torture of known terrorists if it might help to save innocent lives.

Some objections I have to your post:

The US government doesn't release information about many of the prisoners they've detained because of suspicions of terrorism. We don't know the names of some of these prisoners. We don't know what exactly they are supposed to have done- we don't even know if they are suspected of doing anything, because the US refuses to extend to them due process.

The only way that you, an American, can reasonably claim that any of these prisoners where "caught in the act" is if you take the government's word that an act even took place.

So in other words: The executive branch is the force that apprehends these men, is the group that determines whether or not they deserve legal rights, and the group that determines what is to be done with them. They can literally take innocent people into custody, and never be forced to prove that the prisoner did anything wrong. This is bordering on fascist behavior.

Donny
Nov 6th, 2007, 05:06 AM
And believing the conspiracy theories that the US government knew of the attack beforehand isn't "pathological paranoia"?
FYI: Any explanation for the attacks which involves a group of Saudi men planning, in secret, to hijack plans and crash them into the towers is also, by definition, a conspiracy theory. It's a theory... about a conspiracy. Conspiracy theory.


Believe me, I don't trust Bush or many of his cronies one bit... but if people in the government did know of the attack beforehand, you can bet your ass that we would know about it by now. I know there's at least one honest, decent person who would have had this information, and they would have spoken out about it. Bush is a power-hungry moronic puppet of the right wing, but I don't believe even he would sacrifice thousands of innocent American lives.

Every US president has at least several thousand American lives on their hands from domestic policies alone.

Apoleb
Nov 6th, 2007, 05:23 AM
Some objections I have to your post:

The US government doesn't release information about many of the prisoners they've detained because of suspicions of terrorism. We don't know the names of some of these prisoners. We don't know what exactly they are supposed to have done- we don't even know if they are suspected of doing anything, because the US refuses to extend to them due process.

The only way that you, an American, can reasonably claim that any of these prisoners where "caught in the act" is if you take the government's word that an act even took place.

So in other words: The executive branch is the force that apprehends these men, is the group that determines whether or not they deserve legal rights, and the group that determines what is to be done with them. They can literally take innocent people into custody, and never be forced to prove that the prisoner did anything wrong. This is bordering on fascist behavior.

Absolutely correct on all counts. This treatment isn't restricted to people caught in the battlefield. The law was extended last year to apply to any non-US citizen, including permanent residents and students for example living in the US. They can be taken by the US government and held indefinitely without any trial. If that isn't barbarism, I don't know what it is. It has already happened with a Qatari student, and I think he was trying to appeal to a state supreme court. Ofcourse the media doesn't mention anything about this, and most Americans know absolutely nothing about that.

Anyway, the issue here is about interrogation of any person who supposedly knows information about terrorist attacks. This isn't specifically about people who were tried and convicted. I posted this article because I found some of those comments absolutely disgusting, especially Romney's. He doesn't think the government should tell the public about its methods of interrogation. That's really borderline fascism. And then Giuliani making fun of sleep deprivation. Please someone try it a little on him.

Oh and Kittyking, please go troll in your own thread.

Sam L
Nov 6th, 2007, 05:32 AM
Absolutely correct on all counts. This treatment isn't restricted to people caught in the battlefield. The law was extended last year to apply to any non-US citizen, including permanent residents and students for example living in the US. They can be taken by the US government and held indefinitely without any trial. If that isn't barbarism, I don't know what it is.

Okay. That's fair enough. But a scenario here. A friend of mine will be going to the US next year for some Bible study or Christian missionary training thing. I think she's crazy for throwing away her career to do this but she'll go. She's going to Tennessee.

She's not a US citizen so under that law she could be taken by the US government and held indefinitely without any trial. Could be. But what are the chances that it will happen?

I'm only asking this because if one does not have reasons to fear this - see , she probably doesn't even know about this law and isn't concerned with politics at all - is it really something worth worrying about?

:confused:

I actually don't have an opinion on this, I'm just curious.

Apoleb
Nov 6th, 2007, 05:55 AM
Okay. That's fair enough. But a scenario here. A friend of mine will be going to the US next year for some Bible study or Christian missionary training thing. I think she's crazy for throwing away her career to do this but she'll go. She's going to Tennessee.

She's not a US citizen so under that law she could be taken by the US government and held indefinitely without any trial. Could be. But what are the chances that it will happen?

I'm only asking this because if one does not have reasons to fear this - see , she probably doesn't even know about this law and isn't concerned with politics at all - is it really something worth worrying about?

:confused:

I actually don't have an opinion on this, I'm just curious.

Well if your name isn't Ahmed and you don't look Middle Eastern, you probably don't have much to worry about. If that wasn't the case, then you should damn be afraid and careful. Even if we suppose that the government has good intentions (and we know we can never rely on such a thing. The more power you give to people, the more they will abuse it), there will always be innocent people caught in this who could be held indefinitely and never tried. Habeas corpus should be grante to anyone, period.

Scotso
Nov 6th, 2007, 04:52 PM
Some objections I have to your post:

The US government doesn't release information about many of the prisoners they've detained because of suspicions of terrorism. We don't know the names of some of these prisoners. We don't know what exactly they are supposed to have done- we don't even know if they are suspected of doing anything, because the US refuses to extend to them due process.

The only way that you, an American, can reasonably claim that any of these prisoners where "caught in the act" is if you take the government's word that an act even took place.

So in other words: The executive branch is the force that apprehends these men, is the group that determines whether or not they deserve legal rights, and the group that determines what is to be done with them. They can literally take innocent people into custody, and never be forced to prove that the prisoner did anything wrong. This is bordering on fascist behavior.

All of that is true, but that's not what we were talking about. If a person is FOR SURE a terrorists, then I think torturing them is fine. If it isn't proven, then they shouldn't be tortured. I also don't believe in secret prisons. But many terrorists are caught in the act, and it's obvious what their intentions were.

sfselesfan
Nov 6th, 2007, 05:03 PM
If torture actually worked, an intellectual debate would be appropriate. Since it doesn't, anyone who supports it is an utter moron.

The more I read posts from Sam L, the more I consider the "no more foreign aid to Israel" arguments. I've been supportive in the past, but the more I hear this hate spewed, the less sentimental I am. You aren't doing Israel any favors with these posts.

SF

samsung101
Nov 6th, 2007, 05:14 PM
The entire issue is only for the media, the left wing, and those who have no clue about
what our military and intelligence agencies are up against worldwide. Do you really think
during the Clinton years that CIA, FBI, military, and allies did not use serious methods to
get information from people you and I will never know of?

Of course they did.

Do you think HIllary Clinton will be less aggressive or more agressive as President?
Seriously. She will not take one step back from a hard line in foreign policy tactics
regarding terrorist suspects, especially those overseas? Not likely. Just you won't hear
much about it in Congress or from the mainstream media, that wants her to succeed, and to
be perceived as hard on terrorism.




I don't care about waterboarding.
I don't care about keeping a guy hungry for an extra day.

I care that our enemies like to cut off heads.
Cut off genitals.
Take out livers and hearts of alive men.
Rape women.
Throw acid at women.
Blow up schools with kids on purpose.
Blow up pizza parlors.

If we have to slap a guy to get info on something, do it.


Killing a suspect does little good does it? That's not the aim.
What info can you get from a dead person? None. They aim to keep
the suspects and prisoners alive, they're more useful that way if
need be.

As our prisoners at Gitmo continue to gain weight from their religious
meals, with prayer mats, showers, medical care, Red Cross visits, and
Korans given to them by soldiers wearing gloves. Yeah, that's real torture.

Ask prisoners in Saudi Arabia and Mexico and North Korea and China how they
are treated. Get Congress on that too.

Philbo
Nov 6th, 2007, 05:22 PM
DonnyDarko - DOnt listen to what the brainwashed, mainstream media loving drones attack you with - you are the true patriot in this thread.

The Bush Admin totally knew about and could have prevented 9/11 - all you need to do is look at the 9/11 commision and the fact they deliberately
ignored who funded the attacks to know that they at least knew of it.

Kittykind and Sam L are nothin more than a couple of antipodeans who believe every piece of shit they read in a Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper.

Philbo
Nov 6th, 2007, 05:27 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc)

Sam L - Please read this speech of the well known novelist/writer Naomi Wolf - this is what is happening in the USA of today.

The democracy of the United States is at risk. We, the people need to wake up!

KoOlMaNsEaN
Nov 6th, 2007, 05:39 PM
I learned to never trust a republican candidate since Bush came into office. So should you

Donny
Nov 6th, 2007, 11:33 PM
If torture actually worked, an intellectual debate would be appropriate. Since it doesn't, anyone who supports it is an utter moron.

The more I read posts from Sam L, the more I consider the "no more foreign aid to Israel" arguments. I've been supportive in the past, but the more I hear this hate spewed, the less sentimental I am. You aren't doing Israel any favors with these posts.

SF

Exactly. Any method of interrogation which, almost by definition, disregards the concept of an "I don't know" answer is simply inane.

Scotso
Nov 7th, 2007, 06:30 AM
If torture actually worked, an intellectual debate would be appropriate. Since it doesn't, anyone who supports it is an utter moron.

You must not be doing it correctly. :p

Sam L
Nov 7th, 2007, 09:41 AM
If torture actually worked, an intellectual debate would be appropriate. Since it doesn't, anyone who supports it is an utter moron.

The more I read posts from Sam L, the more I consider the "no more foreign aid to Israel" arguments. I've been supportive in the past, but the more I hear this hate spewed, the less sentimental I am. You aren't doing Israel any favors with these posts.

SF

Lamest excuse ever. Yeah, I'm going let my opinions on world matters be influenced by how I view some guy on the Internet. :rolleyes:

And I'm not even from Israel.

If anything you should be boycotting Australian exports or something if you want to try and hurt me. :help: