Principals Meeting on Torture: Can We Impeach Now?

[flex727]

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
You know, it’s a funny thing. I’ve heard so many people over the last few years claim that waterboarding isn’t torture, and also that waterboarding is an important technique to get information from terrorists.

But they never seem to be able to explain WHY waterboarding makes terrorists talk. If waterboarding is just uncomfortable, why in the world would it make a hardened terrorist babble like a baby? If it’s not torture, why does it work? It HAS to be torture, or else the terrorists will just smirk.

Waterboarding won’t work as an interrogation tool unless it is torture. If it’s not torture then it can’t work as an interrogation tool. The pro-waterboarding but anti-torture position is incoherent. At least pro-waterboarding and pro-torture makes a certain amount of sense, from a certain point of view. But someone who is against torture but for waterboarding either hasn’t thought their position through, or hopes that the person they’re arguing with hasn’t.
[/QUOTE]

This seems to me to be a poor argument. What is it when the police get a suspect in a room with bright lights, playing “good cop/bad cop”, etc., and get a confession? Is that torture? I think not. Was it a successful interrogation tool? It would seem so.

[Evil_Captor]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
So when you wonder plaintively why the impeachment votes aren’t there, despite all the mean, nasty, conservative things Bush and Cheney have done, the answer is: because there is no credible allegation of a clear violation of domestic law.
[/QUOTE]

I’m glad you are at least willing to admit that torture is part of the conservative agenda. I still think it’s illegal. Cruel and unusual, you bet.

[gonzomax]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Why? Do you think it was “enough reason” to impeach Clinton?
[/QUOTE]

Absolutely not. The whole thing was a witch hunt. There was no mandate to investigate his personal life. The investigation wasted millions of dollars looking over and over for anything it could run with. We should be ashamed of the whole fiasco.

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
It is not a fact, it is a highly controversial and vigorously disputed point of law.
[/QUOTE]

No, it’s not. What legal precedent has EVER concluded that unlawful combatants are entitled to rights exactly across the board with American citizens?

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
It is not a fact, it is a highly controversial and vigorously disputed point of law.
[/QUOTE]

Really? They are protected from unreasonable search and seizure, just like American citizens on American soil? By whom is that “vigorously disputed”? Because if it is, you better tell our guys in Afghanistan to call off all the raids they have planned until they get a search warrant.

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Really? They are protected from unreasonable search and seizure, just like American citizens on American soil? By whom is that “vigorously disputed”? Because if it is, you better tell our guys in Afghanistan to call off all the raids they have planned until they get a search warrant.
[/QUOTE]

BrainGlutton’s claim is not the most ill-supported claim I’ve ever heard in GD.

But it’s in the top ten percent.

[RedFury]

[QUOTE=Uncommon Sense]
Xenophobia…right.
You know, that’s a pretty baseless and flagrant attack on another poster without so much as a shred of data to back it up. Chill.
[/QUOTE]

Your post is my cite:

@Uncommon Sense

My point is that hardly anyone gives a rip about how we treat members of suspected al Queda members.

– bolding mine.

And since one literally signs away, prior to arrival, any protective rights one might have from one’s country of origin (previous cooperative treaties with the US are basically non-existent today) one is left in the unique position of being totally powerless vis-a-vis The Laws of The Land – which, as you may or not be aware, deprive a “suspect” of practically any rights at all. And obviously anyone can be a suspect if only because the TSA and/or Homeland Security says so. There’s Freedom for you.

More info – with personal anecdotes from many – here.

So, as you can see, I am not just calm but have both the reason and the data necessary to call you out for what you said.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
BrainGlutton’s claim is not the most ill-supported claim I’ve ever heard in GD.

But it’s in the top ten percent.
[/QUOTE]

It’s also one of the more oft-repeated claims that, on the face of it, can’t possibly be true. That our military, fighting overseas, must treat the enemy the way cops have to treat American citizens doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

Now, that does not mean our military guys can torture people-- they can’t. That’s clear from the Army Field Manual. But there’s a lot of room between “torture” and “Miranda”.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Really? They are protected from unreasonable search and seizure . . .
[/QUOTE]

I was thinking of due process. But, in fact, the whole “unlawful combatant” classification as used by the Bush Admin (neither criminal suspect nor POW, thus afforded the legal rights/protections of neither) is controversial. As you know.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Now, that does not mean our military guys can torture people-- they can’t. That’s clear from the Army Field Manual.
[/QUOTE]

If only!

On December 14, 2005, the New York Times reported that the Army Field Manual had been rewritten by the Pentagon. Previously, the manual’s interrogation techniques section could be read freely on the internet. But the new edition’s includes 10 classified pages in the interrogation technique section, leaving the public no indication about what the government considers not to be torture. [2]

On June 5, 2006 the Los Angeles Times reported that the Pentagon’s revisions will remove the proscription against “humiliating and degrading treatment”, and other proscriptions from article 3 of the third Geneva Convention.[3] [4] The LA Times reports that the State Department has argued against the revisions because of the effect it will have on the world’s opinion of the United States.

As of July 5, 2006, there is an ongoing debate over whether the interrogation section should be classified. The New York Times has reported that the Pentagon is considering making the interrogation section public once again, but the Pentagon has made no formal announcement of its intentions.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I was thinking of due process. But, in fact, the whole “unlawful combatant” classification as used by the Bush Admin (neither criminal suspect nor POW, thus afforded the legal rights/protections of neither) is controversial. As you know.
[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily, the way you’ve worded it. The GCs outline what type of combatants need not be considered POWs, and how they are to be treated-- they needn’t be treated as criminals or POWs, if they are determined not to be the latter. Now, whether they can be treated as Bush has done is certainly controversial. But you’re offering a false dichotomy between criminal vs POW.

[Mr.Moto]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I was thinking of due process. But, in fact, the whole “unlawful combatant” classification as used by the Bush Admin (neither criminal suspect nor POW, thus afforded the legal rights/protections of neither) is controversial. As you know.
[/QUOTE]

Controversial to whom? And what confusion is in the case law, as opposed to activists or interest groups or lawyers?

I will freely admit that there has certainly been some legal wrangling over the last few years, but I have seen nothing come down to contradict previous American case law confirming the status of unlawful combatant, nor Geneva Convention protocols also indicating such.

[RedFury]

An example of how the US bypasses treaties with other nations as to how their citizens should be mutually treated – IOW, just like I wrote. Just by virtue of traveling to the US of A you become completely defenseless against any wrongdoing that might be afflicted upon you. Including rendition.

USA: Deporting for torture?

“Not only did the US government fail to seek assurances that Maher Arar would not be tortured in Syria, but, more worryingly, it appears that they may have actively engineered his transfer to Syria. In doing so, they bypassed certain legal guarantees, including his right to effective consular assistance and to representation in a fair proceeding,” Amnesty International said.

– my highlights.

---

More bone-chilling info here:

Extraordinary rendition by the United States

So, I ask again, what’s become of “The Land Of The Free”?

[Uncommon_Sense]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
I hear from time to time about someone rescuing a drowning man. Guess that means they managed to fish a dead body out of the water.
[/QUOTE]

To clarify;
**Drowning is death as caused by suffocation when a liquid causes interruption of the body’s absorption of oxygen from the air leading to asphyxia. The primary cause of death is hypoxia and acidosis leading to cardiac arrest.
**
Near drowning is the survival of a drowning event involving unconsciousness or water inhalation and can lead to serious secondary complications, including death, after the event. Cases of near drowning are often given attention by medical professionals.

Secondary drowning is death due to chemical or biological changes in the lungs after a near drowning incident.

Just so we’re all on the same page regarding the word drown.

From Wiki.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=RedFury]
And then you impeach or prosecute him as well.

My Christian universal cultural background tell me that it’s the only ethical thing to do. Or course, as you mention upthread and in others, that isn’t quite tangible. But it is ethical, correct?
[/QUOTE]

Generally I try and read other posts before responding to the first new one, but you bring up a very interesting question here.

Is it ethical to tie up the government so it can’t do any new business for the last year of a Presidency in order to achieve a rhetorical slap on the wrist against a President whose crime was getting away with stuff because the punitive body was too weak kneed to stand up to him at the time he was doing those things?

[mswas]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Well, what else is there? I’m actually talking about impeaching them both, since they were both involved and apparently fully aware of what was being decided.
[/quote]

Fair enough.

Not that Cheney would become President anyway, since the votes just plain wouldn’t be there in the Senate, as I said in the OP.

Right.

Look, I’ve been talking about it for years. It isn’t like I just started bringing this up yesterday. Hell, I coined the term ‘simulpeachment’ years ago just for situations like this, figuring that anything that Bush was impeachable for, would likely find Cheney involved in up to his armpits.

And two years ago I would have agreed with you, but the window has closed.

Well, it’s too late to go back and impeach him years ago now, isn’t it?

Just as it’s too late to impeach him now.

The question isn’t what we should have done then; it’s what we should do now. I say it’s still important not to let something this blatant go by. No need for patiently working up the ladder over years until you have the evidence to nail the top guy - he’s just brazenly told the world he was informed and approving the whole time. I am opposed with every fiber of my being to letting this just go by.

So wait til he leaves office and nail him then. Why do it now in a way that will seize up the gears of government leaving us without a functioning federal government for a year? It could be good for Democrats or it could be bad. You never know how it will go. Maybe people will see what Bush has done put in stark relief and turn on Republicans, or they will see what the Dems are doing as petty revenge and turn on the Dem candidate, leaving us with John McCain.

Yeah, and my time machine is missing the rewind button; it’s stuck in forward, normal speed. We disagree enormously on whether it makes a difference. You’re just thinking of the present Presidential term. I’m thinking of precedent.

Yes, and I don’t think the precedent matters as much as you do. The President didn’t get away with things because of extraordinary powers, he got away with it because the checking institutions were filled with extraordinary pansies.

Needless to say, I’m not expecting this Congress to act. I’m just furious that, once more, they won’t.

Of course, but the problem isn’t that the President was all powerful. It’s that Congress dropped the ball again and again.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Uncommon Sense]
To clarify;
**Drowning is death as caused by suffocation when a liquid causes interruption of the body’s absorption of oxygen from the air leading to asphyxia. The primary cause of death is hypoxia and acidosis leading to cardiac arrest.
**
Near drowning is the survival of a drowning event involving unconsciousness or water inhalation and can lead to serious secondary complications, including death, after the event. Cases of near drowning are often given attention by medical professionals.

Secondary drowning is death due to chemical or biological changes in the lungs after a near drowning incident.

Just so we’re all on the same page regarding the word drown.

From Wiki.
[/QUOTE]
The article’s about things like the physiology of drowning, drowning risk situations, and so forth. The definitions it gives, which you convey here, are (I presume) appropriate for that context. But that says nothing about the correct usage of ‘drowning,’ etc. in everyday speech.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=mswas]
Is it ethical to tie up the government so it can’t do any new business for the last year of a Presidency
[/quote]
That’s a chuckle. The party line, fifteen months ago, was “we’ve got so much we need to do - impeachment would only get in the way.”

There are two main things Congress can do. One is to pass legislation; the other is to use its subpoena power to investigate.

Very little legislation has gotten the 60 votes in the Senate needed for cloture; even less has gotten the 67 needed for overriding a Bush veto. And most anything that Bush is willing to sign, you’d probably prefer they hold off until we get a new President anyway.

And Bush has of course been thumbing his nose at Congressional subpoenas.

And even in more normal times, the last eight months of the second term of a Presidency aren’t exactly a time when much is accomplished.

BTW, my dim recollection from the Nixon impeachment days is that Congress still managed to pass productive legislation during the Watergate summers of 1973 and 1974. The only point at which impeachment has to shut down the entire House is while the full House debates impeachment. The impeachment trial would of course shut down the Senate for the duration of the trial.

in order to achieve a rhetorical slap on the wrist against a President whose crime was getting away with stuff because the punitive body was too weak kneed to stand up to him at the time he was doing those things?

His crime was doing the stuff. Congress’ crime is letting him get away with it.

Earlier, they at least had the excuse that it would take a great deal of investigation and whatnot to actually pin these things on Bush and Cheney. Now, that excuse is gone.

Your argument boils down to: they’ve sinned this long, so now that Bush has made it much easier to leave their sinful ways, they still shouldn’t do it.

[QUOTE=mswas]
So wait til he leaves office and nail him then.
[/quote]
For what? Like it or not, many of his crimes aren’t stuff that Joe Citizen can do, so they’re largely absent from the statute books; they’re ‘high crimes’ because only a person in high office can commit them. To haul someone before a criminal court, you really do have to be able to point to a specific criminal statute that’s allegedly been violated, and let’s hope it always stays that way.

But Congress can remove the President or Vice-President from office because they’ve approved a program of torture, or lied us into a disastrous war, or politicized the Department of Justice to the point where people were or weren’t getting prosecuted because of their politics, just like in banana republics.

Why do it now in a way that will seize up the gears of government leaving us without a functioning federal government for a year?

Congress, as I said above, wasn’t going to accomplish much anyway, and thank goodness for that; the less, the better. And the Executive agencies will keep doing about what they’ve been doing.

Yes, and I don’t think the precedent matters as much as you do.

We’ll have to agree to disagree there.

The President didn’t get away with things because of extraordinary powers, he got away with it because the checking institutions were filled with extraordinary pansies.

I’ve never said otherwise. So when given a particularly easy opportunity to stop being pansies, you’re saying they should continue their pansyhood. I disagree.

[mswas]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]

We’ll have to agree to disagree there. I’ve never said otherwise. So when given a particularly easy opportunity to stop being pansies, you’re saying they should continue their pansyhood. I disagree.
[/QUOTE]

I’m saying, it’s too little too late. That’s all.

[Uncommon_Sense]

[QUOTE=RedFury]

So, I ask again, what’s become of “The Land Of The Free”?
[/QUOTE]

You make it sound like it’s an across-the-board policy that we waterboard or torture everyone that looks at one of us crossly.
I would hope that the CIA or whoever has the authority to extract critical information that could save the lives of the non-scum (the terrorists being the scum) would make damn sure that they have the right person(s) under arrest for questioning.
If they know damn well that this person holds the key to disarming an operation that is in the process of killing others and those others being people that live in this country or are fighting for our right to live in “The Land of the Free”, I really don’t see how you can say that that person’s rights are the same as those they are trying to destroy.
If the CIA is going around willy nilly waterboarding every suspect without regard as to the critical nature of their position in the terrorist community then you may certainly take issue with that. It’s when they’re about to kill those of us that cherish our right to walk freely in this land that gets me, and that’s when I become less than understanding in regards to their rights.