“If a CIA director testifying under oath is a “vague assertion”…”

There is probably no more sacred oath than the oath the president of the United States takes upon assuming office.

If such oath turns out to be worthless when it comes to telling the truth to the American people on matters of war and peace, torture, etc., etc., why isn't within the realm of possibilities that the word of a CIA director testifying under oath could be a “vague assertion” or worse.?

By granting illegal enemy combatants

If someday the Chinese Army were to invade the United States, and if some American, having some military training and experience some twenty odd years earlier, were to set up an ambush and kill a bunch of Chinese soldiers and civilians, would that person be an illegal enemy combatant? If some Canadian crossed into the US to set up an ambush and kill a bunch of Chinese soldiers and civilians, would that person be an illegal enemy combatant? And if some Mexican did the same, would he also be an illegal enemy combatant?

I have been disappointed to see who here excuses, justifies and hence condones and supports these reprehensible practices; practices we have long condemned others for and fought hard to rid the world of.

If a CIA director testifying under oath is a “vague assertion”

It is a “vague assertion” because he offered up no verifiable evidence. The burden of proof is on them, they're the ones supporting torture not me.

I know you would like to refer to sitting in an uncomfortable position as torture for the shock value, but if you truly get honest, it’s not the same as having your eyes gouged out, now is it?

That's a familiar tactic from torture apologists. Bring up one isolated technique and make it sound like a minor discomfort. If I made you sit with your back hunched over for an entire week, you would be in extreme pain. Ask John McCain about that.

The Geneva Convention argument is nothing but a distraction because U.S. law created in the aftermath of the UN Convention Against Torture does not require any special classification of the victim for torture to be illegal. We could be talking about torturing Osama Bin Laden on death row, it doesn't matter. It's illegal.

As far as the intent of the Conventions, they were designed to insure (among other things) that people waging war were not incentivised to hide in civilian populations, thus placing non-combatants in greater danger. From the dawn of warfare, combatants who are not identifiable by being in a uniform have been considered spies or saboteurs, and were immediately executed.

By granting illegal enemy combatants the same or better status as honorable soldiers fighting under the guidelines of the Conventions, you would be making it impossible to discern between civilians and terrorists thus placing the general population at increased risk.

To me, the only way to maximize both goals that you stated earlier would be for the conventions to continue to not guarantee certain rights to combatants that don't meet the definitions of legal fighters but then countries should voluntarily go farther in extending completely humane treatment to captives. I'd even go so far as to say no hostile treatment at all- but then I'd also agree with the other side of the debate that we shouldn't necessarily broadcast that we never do ANYTHING that would be the slightest bit harsh. We can maintain internal standards that are high, but then continue to keep them guessing basically- I don't see the harm in that (other than of course that some will assume the worst, but that will happen regardless.)

What good sport it will be to have someone with a website entitled “Right Wing Nuthouse” as their new convert. Perhaps he can even join in with some “teabagging” jokes.

For MSNBC.

Oh, Richard. It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world.

But for MSNBC?

If a CIA director testifying under oath is a “vague assertion” and your assumption that nothing of value was obtained by the questioning from hearsay from left-wing websites, I can’t argue it any further.

I switched the word “torture” to enhanced interrogation because I value accuracy and the English language. Just as I said to Rick Moran, lumping the college hazing techniques listed in the memos to the vile acts of actual torture is a linguistic crime. I know you would like to refer to sitting in an uncomfortable position as torture for the shock value, but if you truly get honest, it’s not the same as having your eyes gouged out, now is it?

Not granting Geneva Convention protections to unlawful enemy combatants means that people caught waging war who are not part of an organized, state sponsored military and who do not wear an identifying uniform can be summarily executed. I guess if a civilized country can do that, they would certainly be applauded for simply slapping the offender around as an alternative.

As far as the intent of the Conventions, they were designed to insure (among other things) that people waging war were not incentivised to hide in civilian populations, thus placing non-combatants in greater danger. From the dawn of warfare, combatants who are not identifiable by being in a uniform have been considered spies or saboteurs, and were immediately executed.

By granting illegal enemy combatants the same or better status as honorable soldiers fighting under the guidelines of the Conventions, you would be making it impossible to discern between civilians and terrorists thus placing the general population at increased risk.

I've always assumed that both were the goals.

The CIA director testified under oath that our enhanced interrogation tactics yielded information that saved American lives.

I said evidence, not vague assertions. And how come you switched the word torture for “enhanced interrogation”?

Not granting Geneva Convention protections to those who are specifically excluded from those articles does protect the intent and integrity of the Conventions.

Not granting Geneva Convention protections to everyone is not the same as torturing every prisoner who doesn't meet the classification.

Are you arguing that the intent of the Conventions were to stigmatize warfare that didn't take place between armed conflict between “High Contracting Parties” and not to protect as many people as possible from inhumane treatment?

The point I want to make is simple. If we, as part of the civilized world, wish to maintain moral integrity, I believe people must be held accountable for their baser actions. It's not always convenient or politically expedient, but the moral imperative out ways those concerns.

The CIA director testified under oath that our enhanced interrogation tactics yielded information that saved American lives.

And of course, torturing doesn’t protect the Geneva Conventions. Not granting Geneva Convention protections to those who are specifically excluded from those articles does protect the intent and integrity of the Conventions.

Also, I can hardly believe that you think torturing protects the Geneva Conventions.

But couldn't that possibly be because no one knew the truth of it? A lot of the behavior of our elected officials and DOJ in these instances suggests to me that there's been a conspiracy of silence all along- and that these things we're now shocked at didn't seem beyond the pale at all to them.

The idea of customized torture tailor-made to an individual's personal fears really does represent a certain detached, workman like quality to the business of torture.

I beg you to think.

Think about the unintended consequences of what you are saying. Now that the liberal standard of treatment has been established for unlawful enemy combatants (not POWs), what do you think the chances are of people being captured as opposed to killed on the battlefield?

Why would any opposing force to the U.S. now follow he Geneva Conventions, knowing that regardless of their actions, they will be treated with all the benefits (and in some cases more) as lawful POWs?

I can’t get mad at you for your views – you’re a liberal and can’t help it. My comment to Rick Moran was testy due to fact that he purports to be a conservative – so he shouldn’t be that stupid.

Rick,

You object to the word “mild” in my comment.

I object to your definition of the word “torture”. By defining torture down to the BDS hyped level common today, you have effectively denigrated the horror that people who were subjected to actual torture throughout the ages have suffered.

Are you saying that there is no difference between depriving someone of sleep or peeling their skin with a blowtorch and pliers? If given a choice, which “torture” would you choose?

You are in a medium that uses words. Perhaps you should give those words the respect and accurate use they deserve.

But that's true that we did abandon principles in those previous wars, Chris. The whole current dilemma is how we can stop doing that.