President above the law?

ToshiroOC

Read more here.

I don't have much time to post an exhaustive personal opinion of this, but I find it incredibly dangerous and overwhelmingly authoritarian when the executive branch of our government decides that it is no longer bound by law, and in a position 'superior' to that of Congress, issues of international law that were ratified by Congress aside. Read this quote:from within the study. I read this as implying that Congress may not mandate what the commander-in-chief has the authority to do, because technically all three branches of the federal government are equal in power and may not exercise their power over one another, however it is the stated opinion of the Constitution that the president's duty is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''(source, Article II of the Constitution), and the Constitution mandates that Congress shall have Power to ... To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water ... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces"(source, Article I of the Constitution), all of which appear to me to give Congress the sole authority on issues such as the ones addressed in the memo, which states that the President may supercede Congress and its legislation on matters such as torture.

Opinions?

zerodamage

From my understanding, Terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Conventions.

The_Neon_Cowboy

Since when is the government under the law? They've been above it for quite some time and they can do and get away with what ever they want! Who is to stop them? They'd just change the law...

Speak up! No wait you dis-appeared...oh look you never existed, must have been a clerical error....delete

Again who is to stop them?

Did you know that there are 2 huge secret government agencies in the US government? Two that are so top secret so covert even their names are classified! Yet countless dollars are funneled into them ….Not even congress knows their names when granting funding the show up as “Classified” This as news’s piece on it that’s when no were fast.

Did you know that nothing “has” to be de classified! Any document stamped “office only “as well as classified is exempt for ever being de classified. There are always loop holes and they there for a purpose abuse. Just think of the things you'll never see.....

It's true they don’t fit in anywhere in the Geneva Convention.

raid517

No but terrorists - as criminals should enjoy protection under the law, like any other criminal. And so far in civilized countries we haven't quite taken to torturing out criminal fraternity.

Illegal combatants on the other hand are merely a technicality - and one that is now being routinely abused by the US administration. This refers to people caught in an active combat role while out of uniform in a warzone. The problem here is that in many third world countries these guys can barely afford shoes - let alone full military kit - so pretty much anyone you find can be conveniently classed as an 'illegal combatant.' It makes a mockery of the original motivations behind the clause in the Geneva convention - which was to separate mercenaries and other criminals from the main active forces.

In any case it comes down to whether you believe a civilized country should or should not in any way shape or form advocate the use of torture or not - because plainly if you do advocate torture, there is nothing to separate you morally from those countries you may seek to wage war against. In the old days war used to be about the good guys fighting the bad guys. The good guys didn't advocate torture, didn't imprison people without charge, didn't run concentration camps, didn't instigate repressive or draconian laws in the name of national security - while the bad guys were always the torturers, the guys that shot people in the battlefield without question, who used torture - and who thought nothing of imprisoning people for indefinite periods without any charge or any real prospect of release.

That was how we defined civilized from uncivilized nations. And really I feel it is a definition that is just as valid today as it was then.

The fact that the US has sought to adopt many of the measures that many of us saw as reprehensible and despicable - and that belonged to the practices and customs of what we understood to be the uncivilized nations of the Earth is more than telling for where this Administration wants to take America - and where it intends to lead the American people.

How long I wonder will it take before the conclusion is reached that if it is OK to use these methods on non Americans - then why not adopt them for American citizens too?

You may feel safe while you point at other people and say, 'who cares anyway, it's not me - and it's not Americans who are affected.' but if you accept this now it may well only be a matter of time before the authorities feel free to come knocking on your door.

For me it is a straight choice. Civilization or chaos. Good for all - or abject evil. There is no middle way between these.

GJ

The_Neon_Cowboy

But under who's law? Their not on our soil nor are they citizens of our country... some are not even Iraqi citizens.

They fight in plain clothes for a reason. To mix in with the crowd and be hard nearly imposable to make out until their next to you pumping rounds in your chest or blowing them self’s up with a bomb right on top of you.

Some are old government remnants who’ve took off their uniforms and many are just plan old terrorists.



EDIT:

Some of the methods as they were explained aren’t truly “torture “. For example they may hook you up to a shocker as in the one photo a run a small charge through you just enough for you to feel. Enough for you to second guess what’s going to happen and go… Ok! Ok! I’ll talk! For all they know there going to fry your ***…

Take it this way there are two windows 24/78 hours getting Intel after that is almost impossible once they realize you’re not going to kill them they clam up. Also after that time their groups have already realized that person has been captured and start changing plans/location etc accordingly…

“Time is of the essence” in getting them to talk.

These aren’t boy scouts were dealing with either. They are hardened and many fallowing misdirected “faith“that they are fighting some holy war. In-between their physical and mental blocks, it’s hard to get a person to talk. Their group would kill them if they talked. They fear them more then the US army. With some If they don’t truly think their going to die you won’t get a single piece of Intel.

Many fear too if they talk and are found out their groups will kill them and/or their entire families. It makes it much harder to break them.

Alistair

They do not follow the geneva convention. The convention requires that military forces wear uniforms. The use of civilian clothing is prohibitted. While I know people would be upset if we decided (or continue whatever) to torture terrorists in order to gain information. My personal opinion is if they will not fight by its rules, those rules should not be applied to protect them.

zerodamage

If it came down to a terrorist setting off a nuke in a major city or torturing him to get information on where it is to prevent it, I am all for it. They are not protected under the Geneva Convention. It doesn't apply to them.

raid517

The question is, does this give you a right to torture them? Is torture an acceptable means of extracting information? Just because current laws don't cover them - is this any reason not to introduce legislation that does that specifically prohibits torture and other such barbaric practices?

Or should you resort to the same low level as the scum you are trying to fight?

I disagree that in every instance not wearing a uniform is an example of terrorism.

In some countries it really is the case that uniforms and other military kit where simply beyond the financial scope of the forces involved.

From what you are saying it is OK to imprison people indefinitely and torture them simply because they are poor and can't afford to pay for full military kit.

It is purely a convenience - and a perversion of decent thinking to say that because someone commits an offense outside our countries, that when we catch them we shouldn't afford them the same rights and protections we would for our own citizens.

Like I said, it is a straight choice between civilization and barbarity.

If you choose civilization - there is no question of what exactly are the right choices to make. There is no grey area.

You cannot be a moral and a just society if you do not advocate that same morality and justice in all your dealings with everyone you encounter - whether they come from within your country or not.

Civilization or barbarity? Is it just me or is it really a very easy choice to make?

GJ

raid517

Yeah you would be. Although I suspect it would take less than a nuke for you to voice your support.

I don't know how you guys get it into your head that every terrorist out there is running around with a spare nuke anyway.

To be honest producing a nuke is really a horrendously difficult thing to do - and if you understood just how difficult it was I'm sure you would worry a lot less.

Most of these guys are still running around with rifles made in the 1930's - so you have to appreciate that it's a long way from an antique rifle to building and blowing up a nuclear bomb.

It is such an unlikely scenario that I don't think it's fair to compare it to the issue of just torturing people caught in a battlefield.

GJ

The_Neon_Cowboy

That’s no was near what their doing.... I don't see the chopping and sawing of limbs off, I don’t see the killing of family members, pouring of acid etc...

You’re telling me that playing it easy is going to get this guy that hates you and wants you to die to talk? NO! He’s going to laugh and spit on you...and throw crap at you like a monkey…

I state again these are boy scouts these people have been hardened if not by their own groups, buy their lifestyle, by their previous government …





Well I tell you what if they’d wear them the US would furnish them uniforms LOL. Then this how ordeal would be over in a matter of hours or a few days and we’d have them all rounded up.

Instead they hide and mix within the general populace to make them nearly impossible to weed out until they are attacking or killing you.

zerodamage

I stand by my opinion and the FACT that terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Conventions. Should torture every terrorist and find out what they know..

The_Neon_Cowboy

I remind you hi jacking planes as a group and fling them into buildings is a horrendously difficult thing to do also. But that happened did it not?

1930’s I think not maybe in a few rare cases… But I’m thinking more along the lines of Vietnam era hardware like ak47’s, SKS, RPG’s. You forget also before the war Sodom opened his armory and started arming citizens you’d be surprised what they may have had access too.

The RPG’s are bad enough They found in one stock pile enough RPG’s to arm every man woman and child in Iraq with one!. There are a lot of guns in Iraq new or old. These stockpiles in schools, churches, Mosks, Bunkers etc open the general public to arm as they please…

As for WMD it’s a terrorist’s wet dream to get a hold of WMD. So of cause they constantly seek it and one of their group goals. If they ever acquire it they will use it there is no doubt in that. The recent threats of nuking or useing a dirt bomb in New York doesn’t help them any.

raid517

No, you don't have to take it easy on him. But there is a difference between torture and interrogation. It is my contention that actual torture - of the kind we have seen graphic and unforgettable examples of in the American media - are what separates decent civilized human culture from the uncivilized, corrupt and destructive regimes of this world.

How for example can you say Saddam was a bad guy - or that anyone else is for that matter - how can you make such moral judgments on other regimes if your own government indulges in many of the same practices?

Do you believe you are fighting evil with good or not? Or do you think fighting them on the same level somehow leaves you any moral capital to play with?

To me torture is an indication of moral bankruptcy - you cannot indulge in torture and still claim moral superiority over anyone.

Either you choose to live with that and let yourself and your society descend to the level of animals - or you reject it - and specifically introduce legislation to prevent it.

Why to any decent minded person would this even present a dilemma?

We may (or may not - as there is no clear evidence that torture works) loose intelligence - but what we gain in preserving our basic human decency far outweighs any loss we might encounter. Why? Because quite simply we are not them. No matter what happens or how bad it gets, we can still always say, we are not them.

In the history of the world ultimately evil has always been defeated. If we begin to indulge in practices that have traditionally been viewed by many as the definition of evil - then ultimately we face the prospect that one day we too may be defeated.

No matter what the risks may be, I think that the benefits of staying on the side of morality, fairness and justice for all, far outweigh any of the short term gains we might acquire through indulging in these clearly questionable practices.

You may support it. But like all redundant ideologies, I feel certain that you too will one day be swept aside - and that justice, freedom and equal treatment for all will again one day be established as the guiding principals of civilization in this world.

Best regards,

GJ

Mata

But how do you know they are terrorists if you don’t afford them a fair trail? Already completely innocent people have been imprisoned at Guantanamo and tortured in IRAQ (children included nonetheless).

As the situation is now it’s seems it’s up to the individual soldier in the field to decide about the rights of detainees. Also the guidelines from the administration seem highly immoral and that will surely pass on down the line. This kind of behaviour will only breed more terrorists and come back to hunt you later on.

This kind of behaviour with a “no law” war zone has been extensively tried in Vietnam and elsewhere and proved utterly contra productive. Not only does it strengthen the enemy it weakens the own troops and the public support. If there is no morality in your actions only the gun crazy lunatics will be left in the army. No way will democracy be established in IRAQ which is the only reason this war is still going on. All other objectives are already accomplished.

raid517

Well an Ak47 is still a long way from a nuke - as is learning to fly a 747. I'm pretty sure if I had to I could fly a 747 - as I have had many hours of flight Sim experience - but this is still light years away from having the capacity to build and blow up a nuke.

Anyway Neon I wish you would learn to spell. Reading your stuff is really hard sometimes.

Try http://www.iespell.com/ it should help you a lot.

Even if it did come down to a dirty bomb or whatever anyway - I still couldn't find it in me to advocate torture. I would think that by the time it came to making that kind of decision, several key features of national security would have to have failed terribly first. I would hope too that good police work would do what was needed long before a decision like this was ever needed.

As I said, its about good or evil, decency or corruption - you can't try to find a way in between either of these.

Ultimately evil will be defeated - even if it is you who perpetrates it.

GJ

zerodamage

Terrorists do not have the right to a trial. When an Al Queda terrorist and others are captured, they should be tortured to near death to extract all information possible, then have their heads cut off and put on spikes around the U.S. border as a reminder to what we do with terrorists. Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists.

dj_stick

we should not stoop to the levels of the terrorists when they are captured, all that does is hardens the surviving terrorists' resolve and hatred of western nations

ToshiroOC

The purpose of a trial is to determine guilt, is it not?

raid517

Well thank god you don't run the world is all I can say.

Personally I would post the heads of people who held views like that along side the terrorists - and I would defy any right minded person to tell the difference between them. (Although in my case I would at least give you a fair trial and the right to legal representation first).

Geneva convention or not it is never acceptable for civilised nations to indulge in these kinds of barbaric and unquestionably evil practices.

Clearly however the concept of civilisation is not something people like this understand.

GJ

raid517

Think of it this way.... If a US citizen was captured abroad and imprisoned, wouldn't you feel it was natural to demand that he was treated fairly? If he was tortured, or otherwise mistreated wouldn't you feel anger and indignation?

If so ask yourself why?

Why if you feel free to indulge in similar practices should you feel free to display any anger or resentment at all? After all you are more or less just as bad as the guys on the other side torturing an American.

The more you indulge in these practices the more you empty your own account of any kind of moral righteousness. They torture, you torture, they imprison, you imprison, they kill, you kill. So how really do you differentiate - where is the difference?

You could perhaps say 'well our methods aren't as bad as theirs.' But you forget, some people were murdered too - as a result of what looks like some instances of torture that went too far. So just how bad does it have to get before you agree to draw a line? Death is pretty final. People dying as a result of torture is pretty much about as bad as it gets.

To my eyes there has to be something that separates you from my enemy, something that makes me think that my enemy falls below the decent and normal standards that I would advocate for the citizens of my own country. And if there isn't - if I can't find anything that allows me to make this kind of differentiation, then it is very likely that I will consider you my enemy too.

And in this I am not alone. It was the standard by which two world wars and nearly 60 years of the cold war were fought. In both instances without resorting to the same tactics, what we perceived to be evil then was comprehensively defeated - and moreover it was defeated BECAUSE we believed we had a moral authority and and ethical duty to do so.

As soon as we start playing the same games that our enemies have traditionally employed we loose all that, we loose all the things we fought and struggled for during all this time, we loose all sense of what freedom and justice for everyone really means.

And if that is a state of affairs that you support, then lord I hope there is a war soon - and like the evil doers of the past, you too in time will perish.

Best regards,

GJ

JavaFox

If we resort to using torture then exactly what are we fighting for?