Obama and torture. RPF Opinion?

[Chieftain1776]

First let me say I'm probably in the minority and currently disagree with Ron Paul's position. I'm still on the fence though.

My understanding is that Ron Paul doesn't believe we have a right to torture Al Qaeda members even if they have information that might prevent an attack. I'm with him only in this respect: I believe it's currently illegal under U.S. law to do so. If the U.S. made a law that said it was okay I would be behind the actual use of torture against an enemy to prevent an imminent attack.

The current game of what torture is and is not is dishonest imo. It's a game of what "is" is. If you're using force to get information I think it's a form of torture and only a matter of degree. If you don't want to torture then they should be treated like criminals and bribed with lighter sentences etc.

If there's a middle ground from a libertarian POV...feel free to point it out. Your thoughts RPFers?

[silverhawks]

Here's my take.

Who gets to define "enemy" in the eyes of the law? If the answer is "the government", then the answer will always be no, since sooner or later, the law is going to be misused in horrendous ways.

Remember that the Military Commissions Act coupled with the PATRIOT Act essentially gave the CIA carte blanche to do this to American citizens without fear of reprisal or prosecution as well, based only on the President designating them as an "enemy combatant".

Besides, torture should not be a legal issue; its a moral issue. What if the government "legalised" chemical castration of an "enemy"? Or rape? How about torturing the children of "enemies" in order to extort information from them? In this case, "by any means necessary" is equal to "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

Better for us not to interfere or intervene in those regions of the world in the first place than put the nation in a position to stain itself with the taint of this kind of evil.

[Chieftain1776]

Well domestically we have a criminal justice system that deals with these issues. I'm mainly focusing on terrorists caught on the battlefield. For a traditional enemies the U.S. would continue to be bound by its law which it agreed to conform to the Geneva Conventions (definitely not the other way around!).

Certainly I agree that we'd probably never have this problem (or to a much much lesser extent) if the US Gov didn't "go abroad of monsters to destroy". I think we bring our troops home and then put a time line of shutting down the CIA completely.

[Brian4Liberty]

The ticking time bomb scenario (24) is a false scenario. No need to discuss it.

You would have to torture everyone, as you don't know if there even is a ticking time bomb in the first place. Omnipotent knowledge of all the characters and plot-lines is a fiction that only occurs in entertainment (books, movies, TV).

[paulitics]

First let me say I'm probably in the minority and currently disagree with Ron Paul's position. I'm still on the fence though.

My understanding is that Ron Paul doesn't believe we have a right to torture Al Qaeda members even if they have information that might prevent an attack. I'm with him only in this respect: I believe it's currently illegal under U.S. law to do so. If the U.S. made a law that said it was okay I would be behind the actual use of torture against an enemy to prevent an imminent attack.

?
You don't understand the reason it is illegal?

The actual use of torture against an enemy to prevent an imminent attack can be you. Who defines the enemy, who defines an imminent attack? Jack Bauer? The real world is not 24.

Lets say there is a terrorist attack like 911, and the accused was a Ron Paul supporter. The government then says it has information that would prevent another attack that is "imminent". Replace Al Quada with Ron Paul supporters. You get the picture?

We are already on watchlists for our views, so this scenario is not unrealistic.

There can be no justification for torture.

[youngbuck]

No torture, period.

[Chieftain1776]

You don't understand the reason it is illegal?

The actual use of torture against an enemy to prevent an imminent attack can be you. Who defines the enemy, who defines an imminent attack? Jack Bauer? The real world is not 24.

Lets say there is a terrorist attack like 911, and the accused was a Ron Paul supporter. The government then says it has information that would prevent another attack that is "imminent". Replace Al Quada with Ron Paul supporters. You get the picture?

We are already on watchlists for our views, so this scenario is not unrealistic.

There can be no justification for torture.

There is, I believe, already a process in place for domestic terrorists, ie Timothy McViegh that is different from foreign enemies. As for an imminent attack I guess I wait for the report that Cheney requested about LAX. I'm sure there will be a bias for the "necessity" of government action but it should be informative to a certain degree. Also I guess, to remain consistent, I should support gathering info via torture regardless of the time frame.

[JoshLowry]

How about we just stay out of people's business, stop occupying/preemptivly bombing other countries? Then there won't be any people that we need to torture that are pissed off at our policies.

This is just a War on Angry People that are fed up with our bullshit. It's not a War on Terror.

[Chieftain1776]

How about we just stay out of people's business, stop occupying/preemptivly bombing other countries? Then there won't be any people that we need to torture that are pissed off at our policies.

This is just a War on Angry People that are fed up with our bullshit. It's not a War on Terror.

As I said above I agree. The problem is this: If I killed a family member of yours you wouldn't have the right to execute my entire family for revenge. That's what Al Qaeda is trying to do on a larger scale.

A bit off-topic but I just re-read a John Quincy Adams speech. Here's a really short excerpt but the whole speech is awesome:

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

http://www.fff.org/comment/AdamsPolicy.asp

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Torture is great for getting inaccurate information. If you want to use torture to get a bunch of false leads to waste your time and resources, that's great. I would rather use the currently legal methods which seem to work just fine. The majority of the time, it is not difficult to sniff out when someone is lying. Now imagine someone bloodied, soaking wet, gasping for breath, grimacing in pain, on the verge of passing out, etc. Can you tell if he is lying? The normal signals that someone is lying may not be present if he is under duress.

In my opinion, ANY nation that uses or condones torture is a terrorist state.

[silverhawks]

There is, I believe, already a process in place for domestic terrorists, ie Timothy McViegh that is different from foreign enemies. As for an imminent attack I guess I wait for the report that Cheney requested about LAX. I'm sure there will be a bias for the "necessity" of government action but it should be informative to a certain degree. Also I guess, to remain consistent, I should support gathering info via torture regardless of the time frame.

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1955_rfs.xml)


“(2) Violent radicalization.—The term ‘violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

“(3) Homegrown terrorism.—The term ‘homegrown terrorism’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

“(4) Ideologically based violence.—The term ‘ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.


“The Congress finds the following:

“(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.

“(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.

“(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.

“(4) While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States.

“(5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States.

“(6) Preventing the potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily accomplished solely through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and can benefit from the incorporation of State and local efforts.

“(7) Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion.

“(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

“(9) Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.

Now, while this states that "any measure" taken to "prevent violent radicalization" should not "violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents", I would argue that the adjusted Military Commissions Act coupled with the PATRIOT Acts could strip you of your citizenship or legal residency, reclassifying you as a "terrorist suspect" (used to be "enemy combatant"), outside of the boundaries of constitutional protection.

Going to take a wild stab in the dark and suggest that this bill is going to be written into law double-time when riots or tax revolts start to occur; or legislation very similar to it.

I also notice:


Preventing the potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily accomplished solely through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and can benefit from the incorporation of State and local efforts.

Fusion centers, anyone?

[Liberty Star]

It's like asking how do you feel about using terrorism against innocent people for some "moral cause" like spreading freedom?

Torture is a moral and legal crime, good signs are that Bush's men could be prosecuted now:


Top US officials shaped 'torture' policy: report
22 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Top US officials, not a "few bad apples" of low rank, were behind harsh military interrogation tactics that spread from Guantanamo Bay to Afghanistan to Iraq, a new Senate report said.

[trey4sports]

If we had detained a suspected terrorist whos group was holding your family captive and were going to KILL them in 24 hours, would you advocate torture to get the information out of them???


think about the question before you answer it

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

If we had detained a suspected terrorist whos group was holding your family captive and were going to KILL them in 24 hours, would you advocate torture to get the information out of them???


think about the question before you answer it

If torture was used, would you trust the information obtained?

[micahnelson]

Scenario.

Hacim noslen, noted good looking terrorist, has been captured by the federal government. There have been a series of threats against the country. Hacim was captured when he overslept and didn't get to the check in point on time. Authorities found a note on him which says, "Hey Hacim, I'm super sorry we had to take off but we have to go bomb that place tonight. Please don't tell the white devil what we are up to, and seriously don't tell them how afraid of water you are or they will pull a waterboard on ya. AllahAkbar, etc- love, the other terrorists."

Situation A: Authorities waterboard hacim to get the intel, get a parade.
Situation B: No torture, bomb goes off. Thousands dead, Hacim goes to jail, maybe.

I suggest for you, situation C: Failure has already occurred- dereliction of duty. The fact that there is a ticking bomb somewhere means that intelligence has failed. Intelligence chiefs lose their jobs, but face criminal negligence charges for the lives lost in the terrorist attack. If they prevent the attack via torture, they face the lesser charge of criminal assault.

You see kids, harming another human being is a crime against humanity- but in the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY chance that there is a ticking timebomb, innocent people should not have to pay the ultimate sacrafice for the poor work of the intelligence community and the malicious plots of terrorists.

If torture is likely to get the information, which is debatable, the authorities could break the law to get the information and then face the consequences even if it turns out to be true.


I know its a messy solution, but is there a solution that doesn't involve turning hundreds of people into martyrs to principle on one hand, or give the government carte blanche authority to torture people on the other?

[trey4sports]

If torture was used, would you trust the information obtained?


maybe, maybe not. with 24 hours ticking down adleast id have some info to go on

[silverhawks]

If we had detained a suspected terrorist whos group was holding your family captive and were going to KILL them in 24 hours, would you advocate torture to get the information out of them???

think about the question before you answer it

Think about the question before you ask it. :)

Why has the terrorist come to America to kidnap my family?

Is it due to America throwing its weight around in the Middle East, for example?

Could this entire scenario be avoided through the use of non-interventionist foreign policy?

It's a matter of cause and effect.

[Chieftain1776]

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1955_rfs.xml)

Now, while this states that "any measure" taken to "prevent violent radicalization" should not "violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents", I would argue that the adjusted Military Commissions Act coupled with the PATRIOT Acts could strip you of your citizenship or legal residency, reclassifying you as a "terrorist suspect" (used to be "enemy combatant"), outside of the boundaries of constitutional protection.

Going to take a wild stab in the dark and suggest that this bill is going to be written into law double-time when riots or tax revolts start to occur; or legislation very similar to it.

I also notice:


Fusion centers, anyone?

I believe the PATRIOT ACT is unconstitutional itself. Again there's always the threat that government will use its monopoly of force to take our liberty. That's part why in the end I'm more of an anarcho-capitalist.


Originally Posted by Isaac Bickerstaff
If torture was used, would you trust the information obtained?

Yeah I know it's debatable. On Hardball there was a good interview of Robert Baer on this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#30353880). I want it used only as a last resort and not at all if its proven to be ineffective. The threat, like Ron Paul's argument for secession, may be enough to get the info. I think it should be on the table.

[rbu]

Torture is unreliable. People will say anything just to make it stop.

[thasre]

I'm putting myself on record as saying that I would much rather see uber-restrictive regulations about "enhanced interrogation techniques" that prevent all sorts of things, even if they would have valuable security results, than for there to be even ONE person who undergoes more harm at the hands of government forces than absolutely necessary or humanly excusable.

Sure if you torture someone who's actually guilty for a long time you may end up getting information that may prevent a terrorist attack that might happen, but I guarantee you that they torture far more people than necessary, the people who could arguably "deserve" to be tortured are tortured to a greater extent than necessary, and, lastly...

TORTURE IS JUST PLAN WRONG ANYWAYS. Human dignity always outweighs government security, even if the human in question is despicable. Let a judge and jury and fair trial be the deciders in whether or not a person deserves any kind of punishment, and then make the punishment humane.

Torture is about sacrificing human dignity in the name of security, and any country, even America, that sacrifices human dignity in the interests of security doesn't deserve the security it's protecting. As Isaac said,
ANY nation that uses or condones torture is a terrorist state.

[thasre]

If we had detained a suspected terrorist whos group was holding your family captive and were going to KILL them in 24 hours, would you advocate torture to get the information out of them???


think about the question before you answer it

That's like asking, "If there were a really hot, totally naked woman passed out on your bed and you knew you could have sex with her, without her or anyone else ever knowing, would you go ahead and do it?" Hopefully the appropriate answer is obvious.

The fact is, in a situation in which I felt the emotional turmoil of knowing my family might soon die and there was someone that could be tortured into possibly revealing information about how to save them, I would probably want the person to be tortured. But it isn't prudent, wise, legal, ethical, moral, honorable, or what-have-you, to make decisions like that based on rash emotions and the prospect of immediate gain. My emotional state and the prospects of saving my family wouldn't make torture any more MORAL, only more APPEALING.

[Chieftain1776]

...would you go ahead and do it?" Hopefully the appropriate answer is obvious.

I think the analogy way is off. The victim in your scenario is just that- a victim. We're talking about a proven terrorist that is withholding information that will result in acts of mass murder. He's not just a normal person with no ties.

I'm not even arguing terrorists should be tortured for any reason. If there's no information to be gleaned he shouldn't be harmed. That is until the there is some process ie a military tribunal that passes out a final sentence. I don't know the specifics but I think the SCOTUS made some ruling on the GITMO detainees forcing them into regular courts I believe.

[Theocrat]

Scenario.

Hacim noslen, noted good looking terrorist, has been captured by the federal government. There have been a series of threats against the country. Hacim was captured when he overslept and didn't get to the check in point on time. Authorities found a note on him which says, "Hey Hacim, I'm super sorry we had to take off but we have to go bomb that place tonight. Please don't tell the white devil what we are up to, and seriously don't tell them how afraid of water you are or they will pull a waterboard on ya. AllahAkbar, etc- love, the other terrorists."

Situation A: Authorities waterboard hacim to get the intel, get a parade.
Situation B: No torture, bomb goes off. Thousands dead, Hacim goes to jail, maybe.

I suggest for you, situation C: Failure has already occurred- dereliction of duty. The fact that there is a ticking bomb somewhere means that intelligence has failed. Intelligence chiefs lose their jobs, but face criminal negligence charges for the lives lost in the terrorist attack. If they prevent the attack via torture, they face the lesser charge of criminal assault.

You see kids, harming another human being is a crime against humanity- but in the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY chance that there is a ticking timebomb, innocent people should not have to pay the ultimate sacrafice for the poor work of the intelligence community and the malicious plots of terrorists.

If torture is likely to get the information, which is debatable, the authorities could break the law to get the information and then face the consequences even if it turns out to be true.


I know its a messy solution, but is there a solution that doesn't involve turning hundreds of people into martyrs to principle on one hand, or give the government carte blanche authority to torture people on the other?

My sentiments are similar to those in the post above. In principle, I would say I'm against torture. From a personal stance, it is my belief no man was ever tortured as worse as Jesus Christ was during His passion. The thought of what He had to go through really brings tears to my eyes sometimes.

Having said that, I do believe there are exceptions to allowing torture because we live in an imperfect, sinful world where evil men are ever seeking to bring terror and misery to the masses for their own personal gain. In extreme cases where there is to be an imminent threat to innocent lives, I would say torture should be used as a last resort, as unpleasant as it would seem to me.

[Anti Federalist]

My sentiments are similar to those in the post above. In principle, I would say I'm against torture. From a personal stance, it is my belief no man was ever tortured as worse as Jesus Christ was during His passion. The thought of what He had to go through really brings tears to my eyes sometimes.

Having said that, I do believe there are exceptions to allowing torture because we live in an imperfect, sinful world where evil men are ever seeking to bring terror and misery to the masses for their own personal gain. In extreme cases where there is to be an imminent threat to innocent lives, I would say torture should be used as a last resort, as unpleasant as it would seem to me.

You'll never put that jinn back in the bottle once released.

You'd open the door to the savagery that made Christ's suffering not only possible, but perfectly legal.

I can't help but think that's a sin on the face of it.

[idiom]

Why is there a ticking Bomb?

Because 50 yeah ago someone thought it would be a good idea to torture someone to stop the 'commies'.

[Vessol]

Why is there a ticking Bomb?

Because 50 yeah ago someone thought it would be a good idea to torture someone to stop the 'commies'.

Torture goes back far longer then the Red Scare.

[Kludge]

Scenario.

Hacim noslen, noted good looking terrorist, has been captured by the federal government. There have been a series of threats against the country. Hacim was captured when he overslept and didn't get to the check in point on time. Authorities found a note on him which says, "Hey Hacim, I'm super sorry we had to take off but we have to go bomb that place tonight. Please don't tell the white devil what we are up to, and seriously don't tell them how afraid of water you are or they will pull a waterboard on ya. AllahAkbar, etc- love, the other terrorists."

Situation A: Authorities waterboard hacim to get the intel, get a parade.
Situation B: No torture, bomb goes off. Thousands dead, Hacim goes to jail, maybe.

I suggest for you, situation C: Failure has already occurred- dereliction of duty. The fact that there is a ticking bomb somewhere means that intelligence has failed. Intelligence chiefs lose their jobs, but face criminal negligence charges for the lives lost in the terrorist attack. If they prevent the attack via torture, they face the lesser charge of criminal assault.

You see kids, harming another human being is a crime against humanity- but in the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY chance that there is a ticking timebomb, innocent people should not have to pay the ultimate sacrafice for the poor work of the intelligence community and the malicious plots of terrorists.

If torture is likely to get the information, which is debatable, the authorities could break the law to get the information and then face the consequences even if it turns out to be true.


I know its a messy solution, but is there a solution that doesn't involve turning hundreds of people into martyrs to principle on one hand, or give the government carte blanche authority to torture people on the other?

My Neo-Austrian socioeconomic philosophy calls for the extermination of all people so that we will avoid problems such as this. It is perfect.

It's called kludgism for obvious reasons.

[idiom]

Torture goes back far longer then the Red Scare.

Yeah, but I was just tracing the current bomb that is supposedly going to kill hundreds of American School children for no reason.

The mentality is always that "Bombs are just there. They just show up".

[Vessol]

Yeah, but I was just tracing the current bomb that is supposedly going to kill hundreds of American School children for no reason.

The mentality is always that "Bombs are just there. They just show up".

I'm not an advocate of torture or imperialism, nor the Truman doctrine. But it's just plain ignorant to say that there is no one who would take the chance to kill a bunch of Americans if they had a chance.

[KoldKut]

...

[idiom]

I'm not an advocate of torture or imperialism, nor the Truman doctrine. But it's just plain ignorant to say that there is no one who would take the chance to kill a bunch of Americans if they had a chance.

Wouldn't a massive secret police apparatus reduce that threat?

[klamath]

I am against torture and our interventionism. I believe that our foreign policy brings a lot of terrorism to our people but I am really sick of the attitude that the world would be a beautiful, peaceful place if only America totally disarmed and stayed within our borders. We have our part in the violence of the world but we are not the only reason there is violence in the world. Other imperial powers would rise up and start imposing their might on the world and the US if they felt they could. The entire history of mankind has been nothing but this. Our invasion of Iraq was wrong but don't anyone let themselves believe Sadamn. didn't have middle eastern imperial goals. Unfortunatly for him he ran into a bigger imperialist than him.

Our defence policy should be about not adding to the natural violence of the world but defending our borders from it.

[ChaosControl]

If the person has done a crime that is so vile that they deserve punishment worse than death, I have no problem with torture. They at that time can use it as a method of gaining information if they wish, although I don't know how reliable said information would be.

[surf]

quoting Sheppard Smith, "We don't fucking torture!" Assuming he meant torture is wrong and should not be done, this is one of the few times i've agreed with him.

that doesn't mean i wouldn't recommend torturing FRB officials though... :)