Questions about torture (Hannity approves it)

[hotbrownsauce]

Hannity tonight on Fox News said that water boarding people wasn't torture and was a sophisticated interrogation technique. His argument is a pretty good one... by "sophisticatedly interrogating" one person we saved tens of thousands of lives.

Briefly and to the point please! =)
1.) No straw man arguments.
2.) Support your claims.
3.) Can you include quotes?
4.) Can you include links if applicable?
5.) What are the opinions of the framers of the USA if any? Quotes?
6.) Forgetting if sophisticated interrogation is torture or not why did the USA make laws against torture?
7.) Do you know any arguments supporting the use of sophisticated interrogation?
8.) How do liberty minded leaders feel?
9.) Briefly state separately if you do or don't believe in torture, if you do or don't believe in sophisticated interrogation, and if you equate them to be the same thing.

Thank you so much for your input!

HBS

EDITED to include this

Some people have expressed scepticism that the behavior that Bush and his cabinet engaged in regarding "enhanced interrogation techniques" constitute criminal activity. I've decided to post US law regarding torture and war crimes, which I feel were CLEARLY violated by the Bush administration.
EDIT: Specifically, I think the provisions that were violated are the ones condemning conspiracy to commit torture, which Bush and his cabinet clearly engaged in, and which was then carried into performance by people under Bush's authority. (I've also now edited out portions of the War Crimes section that I think are irrelevant to make the reading less cumbersome.)

War Crimes
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html

§ 2441. War crimes
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
(d) Common Article 3 Violations.—
(1) Prohibited conduct.— In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:
(A) Torture.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
__________________________________________________ _______

Torture
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html

§ 2340. Definitions
As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) 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;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) 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; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

§ 2340A. Torture
(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

[Athan]

First off, fuck hannity. He has helped to destroy liberty in our country as much as any socialist, communist, or corrupt official. I hope he loses his job soon by the very same government he helped increase in size and power. That would be delicious irony.

Anyway regarding the argument, for me, the subject of torturing on anyone who is NOT an American citizen is something I don't disapprove of. The Constitution grants Americans the rights to not receive unreasonable punishment. If it is someone who is foreign, the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to them so it ends up being a moral judgement.

If you have no moral qualms about killing or torturing an al-queda member, our Constitution do not apply to him.

However, I can not find a reason NOT to arrest hannity for treason against the United States.

[Liberty Star]

Hannity is one the most disgraced and discredited neocom pimps and media sluts. It would be surprising if he didn't approve of torture, war mongering and wasting trillions on misguided dumb pursuits.

[Pericles]

The argument in favor of torture is utilitarian - it is the only way to obtain information that leads to a greater good (stop increased loss of life). I suggest that the reason why the evidence on the effectiveness of torture is contradictory is because torture has limited effectiveness. Bringing out the rubber hoses to find out the combination to your safe will work because the answer is easy to test for truthfulness, and once the safe is open, the reason for torture ceases, and this is obvious to the person being tortured.

Without the ability to quickly verify the accuracy of the answer, the value of the information gained by torture decreases, and the person being tortured has less need to be truthful as just talk. Where is the bomb and who is involved requires more time to verify, and either torture stops while the story is checked out (in which case truthful information plays no role is stopping the torture), or torture continues under the assumption that the truth is not being told. Continuing to torture under these circumstances yields unreliable information as the person being tortured has no reason to tell the truth as torture continues.

In the hypothetical situations usually given (planting a nuke or captive buried alive), torture is used to obtain time sensitive information (bomb, murder by suffocation). However, this requires that the subject be broken quickly, and inflicting pain is not always the fastest method of causing someone to break. Someone who believes in what he is doing, has knowledge of how long he must hold out, and has likely got a cover story to give in case of capture can resist or evade long enough for the plan to be realized. At that point, his information has little value.

[rmcc4444]

Hannity also supports the Patriot Act.

[thasre]

4.) Can you include links if applicable?


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=189808

This is a thread I just started on American law regarding torture and war crimes. What Bush did seems to me a clear violation of US law, regardless of the "utility" of "enhanced interrogation".

[paulitics]

It's orwellian to say waterboarding is not torture. Of course it is. It is suffocation. Have you ever choked on something and made to feel like you are drowning? Hannity is a liar. Rush Limbaugh calls Abu Graib nothing more than some fraternity games. The same thing, it is a lie. You can't debate this topic if you call it sophisticated interrogation....the whole premise is a big fat lie.
It's torture. Now does torture work in obtaining info? No, all it does is create false leads. Tortruing was used to obtain false information that lead us into war with Iraq killing a million innocents.

[angelatc]

He thinks water boarding is sophisticated . One needs to read no farther than that.

[Bruno]

We once held ourselves to a higher standard.

Isn't the "definition" of insanity repeating the same act over and over expecting different results?

That would apply to waterboarding the same person over 180 times. "just one more time, I bet he cracks"

[olehounddog]

Then it could be said that torture in and of itself is an interrogation technique. Shit stinks. It makes no difference what you name it.

Jump in the shower, take you washcloth put it over your face and stand under the shower with water hitting the spread out cloth.. Then see how long it takes for fear to set in. Now stay there as long as you can. Imagine you had no power to stop or move out of the water stream. It will scare the hell out of you. You will most likely move very quickly after the first attempted breath. It is torture to make an individual think they are going to die. Period

[NMCB3]

First off, fuck hannity. He has helped to destroy liberty in our country as much as any socialist, communist, or corrupt official. I hope he loses his job soon by the very same government he helped increase in size and power. That would be delicious irony.

Anyway regarding the argument, for me, the subject of torturing on anyone who is NOT an American citizen is something I don't disapprove of. The Constitution grants Americans the rights to not receive unreasonable punishment. If it is someone who is foreign, the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to them so it ends up being a moral judgement.

If you have no moral qualms about killing or torturing an al-queda member, our Constitution do not apply to him.

However, I can not find a reason NOT to arrest hannity for treason against the United States.First off I agree that Hannity is an enemy of liberty who unsurprisingly supports torture. Of course the Constitution does not "grant" rights to anyone as these rights pre-date the document. As such these rights apply to all men and women on earth. Even the much hated Bin Laden has rights, the exact same rights as you and I. Conversely the government does not have a "right" to infringe on the rights of others by torturing them. Finally torture is just plain wrong no matter what twisted logic you use to justify it, or what clever names you may call it. Therefore the decision to torture is not a moral judgment at all, it lies completely outside the moral sphere because morality by any reasonable standard condemns torture as wrong. Hannity is using the same argument put forth for nuking Japan, ie. it will save more lives than it destroys. Of course if the US didn't demand unconditional surrender from an already beaten Japan, invasion of the mainland would not have been necessary nor would the nuking of civilians been "required".

[paulitics]

Hannity also supports the Patriot Act.

And wiretapping, and the Military Comission Act. He is a neocon.

[angelatc]

Then it could be said that torture in and of itself is an interrogation technique. Shit stinks. It makes no difference what you name it.

Jump in the shower, take you washcloth put it over your face and stand under the shower with water hitting the spread out cloth.. Then see how long it takes for fear to set in. Now stay there as long as you can. Imagine you had no power to stop or move out of the water stream. It will scare the hell out of you. You will most likely move very quickly after the first attempted breath. It is torture to make an individual think they are going to die. Period

Ooh! I am going to try that with the kids tonight! After all, it isn't torture so CPS won't care, right?

[silverhawks]

Waterboarding is torture, and torture is morally wrong...and I hold that TRUTH to be SELF-EVIDENT.

[paulitics]

First off, fuck hannity. He has helped to destroy liberty in our country as much as any socialist, communist, or corrupt official. I hope he loses his job soon by the very same government he helped increase in size and power. That would be delicious irony.

Anyway regarding the argument, for me, the subject of torturing on anyone who is NOT an American citizen is something I don't disapprove of. The Constitution grants Americans the rights to not receive unreasonable punishment. If it is someone who is foreign, the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to them so it ends up being a moral judgement.

If you have no moral qualms about killing or torturing an al-queda member, our Constitution do not apply to him.

However, I can not find a reason NOT to arrest hannity for treason against the United States.


The Militarry Comissions act can strip you, your mother or anyone else of their citizenship therefore putting you on the same level as Al Quada. If you can justify torture on another man, innocent or guilty, you must justify it on yourself and your family.

[TastyWheat]

He's been using the "saving thousands of lives" argument forever. We still don't even have any statistics or any real data on how effective these techniques are and how useful the acquired information was. And if these "thousands of lives" aren't American lives then, forgive me for being so heartless, I don't give a shit.

[Anti Federalist]

The argument in favor of torture is utilitarian - it is the only way to obtain information that leads to a greater good (stop increased loss of life). I suggest that the reason why the evidence on the effectiveness of torture is contradictory is because torture has limited effectiveness. Bringing out the rubber hoses to find out the combination to your safe will work because the answer is easy to test for truthfulness, and once the safe is open, the reason for torture ceases, and this is obvious to the person being tortured.

Without the ability to quickly verify the accuracy of the answer, the value of the information gained by torture decreases, and the person being tortured has less need to be truthful as just talk. Where is the bomb and who is involved requires more time to verify, and either torture stops while the story is checked out (in which case truthful information plays no role is stopping the torture), or torture continues under the assumption that the truth is not being told. Continuing to torture under these circumstances yields unreliable information as the person being tortured has no reason to tell the truth as torture continues.

In the hypothetical situations usually given (planting a nuke or captive buried alive), torture is used to obtain time sensitive information (bomb, murder by suffocation). However, this requires that the subject be broken quickly, and inflicting pain is not always the fastest method of causing someone to break. Someone who believes in what he is doing, has knowledge of how long he must hold out, and has likely got a cover story to give in case of capture can resist or evade long enough for the plan to be realized. At that point, his information has little value.

There is the answer to the OP's question.

silverhawks wrote:


Waterboarding is torture, and torture is morally wrong...and I hold that TRUTH to be SELF-EVIDENT.

And there is the reason why it should not be engaged in.

From a strictly utilitarian perspective, perhaps some information could be gained, but without a way to quickly verify it, the information would be suspect at best.

Torture a man long enough, and he'll start to say anything, much like Khalid Sheik Mohamed confessing to plotting to blow up buildings in Indonesia that were built four years after he was captured.

So then you have to "up the ante'" and use increasingly harsh "sophisticated interrogation techniques".

What do you do next?

How about rape the man's wife in front of him with an acid covered wooden phallus?

Torture his children?

Crush his testicles?

Oh, and while you're at it, maybe the government can get to work on that pesky Jewish banker problem.

The fact that we are even having this conversation, and that sick, stupid slut Shamity is on national TV defending this, is only an indication of how far we have fallen, have far we have devolved.

And it hasn't taken long for this mindset to bleed over into domestic law enforcement, as more and more, people who have not been convicted of any crime are subjected to "pain compliance" techniques using everything from cattle prods to nunchukas.

You truly reap what you sow, and by sowing evil you will get it back tenfold.

[Athan]

First off I agree that Hannity is an enemy of liberty who unsurprisingly supports torture. Of course the Constitution does not "grant" rights to anyone as these rights pre-date the document. As such these rights apply to all men and women on earth. Even the much hated Bin Laden has rights, the exact same rights as you and I. Conversely the government does not have a "right" to infringe on the rights of others by torturing them. Finally torture is just plain wrong no matter what twisted logic you use to justify it, or what clever names you may call it. Therefore the decision to torture is not a moral judgment at all, it lies completely outside the moral sphere because morality by any reasonable standard condemns torture as wrong. Hannity is using the same argument put forth for nuking Japan, ie. it will save more lives than it destroys. Of course if the US didn't demand unconditional surrender from an already beaten Japan, invasion of the mainland would not have been necessary nor would the nuking of civilians been "required".

And...


The Militarry Comissions act can strip you, your mother or anyone else of their citizenship therefore putting you on the same level as Al Quada. If you can justify torture on another man, innocent or guilty, you must justify it on yourself and your family.

I agree with both of you and as soon as I got off the computer I had already wished I would have worded my post better. (hannity's treason irritates me to no end) I wouldn't torture for these reasons you both posted. The problem is that, I personally, have little interests in arguing with those who support torture on al-queda members from foreign nations. (not jose padilla and such)

And the reason why is that our own Constitution BARELY protects our rights anymore these days. Those videos of boarder patrol agents being confronted by Americans using their 4th amendment shows the extremes Americans have to go to just to enforce their NATURAL rights. Arguing on this front for me is just picking up another unnecessary squabble in my view. But by all means have at the hannity argument.

[hotbrownsauce]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=189808

This is a thread I just started on American law regarding torture and war crimes. What Bush did seems to me a clear violation of US law, regardless of the "utility" of "enhanced interrogation".

The Following was posted by THASRE


Torture
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html

§ 2340. Definitions
As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) 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;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) 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; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

[Freedom 4 all]

I've held the suspicion that Hannity got his entire foreign policy from watching 24 for a while now.

[hotbrownsauce]

So do we know any answers to these questions?

What are the opinions of the framers towards torture? Do you have any Quotes?
How do liberty minded leaders feel towards torture?

[carlangaslangas]

...

Anyway regarding the argument, for me, the subject of torturing on anyone who is NOT an American citizen is something I don't disapprove of. The Constitution grants Americans the rights to not receive unreasonable punishment. If it is someone who is foreign, the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to them so it ends up being a moral judgement.

...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It does not say "that all Americans are created equal"

I believe that the spirit of enlightenment that led to the foundation of this country is not compatible with torture, regardless of the nationality of the victim.

This link explains our moral position on torture during the Revolutionary War:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1217-30.htm


After capturing 1,000 Hessians in the Battle of Trenton, he ordered that enemy prisoners be treated with the same rights for which our young nation was fighting. In an order covering prisoners taken in the Battle of Princeton, Washington wrote: "Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren…. Provide everything necessary for them on the road."

John Adams argued that humane treatment of prisoners and deep concern for civilian populations not only reflected the American Revolution's highest ideals, they were a moral and strategic requirement.

[paulitics]

So do we know any answers to these questions?

What are the opinions of the framers towards torture? Do you have any Quotes?
How do liberty minded leaders feel towards torture?


"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

[bunklocoempire]

There is the answer to the OP's question.

silverhawks wrote:



And there is the reason why it should not be engaged in.

From a strictly utilitarian perspective, perhaps some information could be gained, but without a way to quickly verify it, the information would be suspect at best.

Torture a man long enough, and he'll start to say anything, much like Khalid Sheik Mohamed confessing to plotting to blow up buildings in Indonesia that were built four years after he was captured.

So then you have to "up the ante'" and use increasingly harsh "sophisticated interrogation techniques".

What do you do next?

How about rape the man's wife in front of him with an acid covered wooden phallus?

Torture his children?

Crush his testicles?

Oh, and while you're at it, maybe the government can get to work on that pesky Jewish banker problem.

The fact that we are even having this conversation, and that sick, stupid slut Shamity is on national TV defending this, is only an indication of how far we have fallen, have far we have devolved.

And it hasn't taken long for this mindset to bleed over into domestic law enforcement, as more and more, people who have not been convicted of any crime are subjected to "pain compliance" techniques using everything from cattle prods to nunchukas.

You truly reap what you sow, and by sowing evil you will get it back tenfold.


+ 1776

Torture, policing the world, paying off countries and on and on.

Why the hell do we kid ourselves that doing a half-assed job will make a difference?

Sure, a pre-emptive war, boots on the ground –but stay outta the mosque!

Pakistan? $10 billion is the price to stabilize, what? $10 billion wasn’t enough?

Our Country WAS NOT BUILT to handle this stuff and still hold up.

Government can’t handle the “tools” it has now, why give ‘em another to use poorly, and that can easily be used on us?

I know hotbrownsauce, not very specific.

Bunkloco