IssueManager 3.0
IssueManager Enhanced 3.0
VCalendar

News 
3.0.6 version released 9/12/2006

Subscribe
for notifications about new releases
(of all our apps)
Email


Wordpress themes


Design awesome Wordpress
themes & professional
Website templates.
www.Artisteer.com

iZTnBzvuwq
Author Medzah Posting date 2/17/2012 6:13:29 PM
that the psoriner who resisted noncoercive methods was rare, but in those hard cases, fear usually produced results. Fear works better than pain.> It is an ugly business, and it is rightly banned. The interrogators who waterboarded Zubaydah were breaking the law. They knew they were risking their careers and freedom.I disagree with Bowden here; but then, this was written in 2007 and I don't think at the time we knew how extensively the Justice Department and CIA lawyers researched the matter on where the line in the sand should be drawn. The CIA were very wary of crossing a line and were on the conservative side if it meant risking future prosecution. They went to great length to make sure they were legally protected before proceeding. But if the result of the act itself was a healthy terrorist with a bad memory vs. a terror attack that might kill hundreds or even thousands of people, it is a good outcome. The decision to punish those responsible for producing it is an executive one. Prosecutors and judges are permitted to weigh the circumstances and consider intent.> Which is why I say that waterboarding Zubaydah may have been illegal, but it wasn?t wrong.What Bowden is saying, and he clarifies it in a succeeding article after his first one generated flak, is that torture should remain illegal, but under extraordinary circumstances is justifiable morally:This correspondent argued that we ought to accept impending tragedy in the name of honoring a high-minded policy.> In my column, I raised the example of the German police chief who threatened a captured kidnapper with torture because he refused to reveal where he had buried alive his 12-year-old victim. The kidnapper promptly gave the location. The German police chief lost his job for making the threat.> It may well have been more noble on some level for him not to have made the threat, but I prefer a less rigid concept of morality. I would not have fired the police chief, or prosecuted him. I agree completely with his actions, even though torture is repulsive. The boy?s life matters more than my rectitude or peace of mind.@: Admiral Mike McConnell was another one, like Hayden, who was brought on board late in the game and had no inherent vested interest in defending CIA-style waterboarding. After a thorough review of the program's techniques and effectiveness, he concluded that I played grade school and high school football, and playing high school football subjects you to more danger than these techniques. In reviewing military interrogation practices and answering requests by SOUTHCOM combatant commander, Army General James T. Hill to allow additional methods that went beyond the Army Field Manual but which were also still legal and humane, Rumsfeld is famous for having quipped in the margin of one Category II technique ( standing ), I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours? Whether he was being funny or not about it, it made for good fodder for the critics of Guantanamo and detainee abuse. But seriously .making someone (anyone, let alone a terrorist) stand for 4 hours rises to the definition of abuse and torture ? In Rumsfeld's memoir, Known and Unknown, he writes on pg 578,One technique included changing the detainee's regular hot meals to standard MREs (meals ready to eat). I found it strange that serving detainees the same meals our soldiers ate could be called an enhanced interrogation procedure.When Rumsfeld was reviewing interrogation methods in 2002 and 2003 for military detainees, several military senior officials were telling Rumsfeld he was being too restrictive (no one was ever waterboarded at Guantanamo, and the DoD detention operations were separate from that of the CIA). while researching for a different comment: *Al Qaida personnel had been trained to resist standard questioning techniques, and some of these detainees were believed to have important intelligence. The Southern Command therefore requested permission to try some techniques that went beyond the Army Field Manual but were still within the bounds of U.S. and international law- for example, requiring detainees to stand for up to four hours at a time while being questioned. When some military department lawyers questioned the legality of those additional techniques, Rumsfeld revoked his approval and asked for a Department-wide legal review. The review produced a report in April 2003 that unanimously endorsed some of the techniques and reported disagreement on others. Rumsfeld authorized the unanimously endorsed techniques and rejected all of the legally contested ones. War and Decision, Pg 165I do, however, agree, that subjecting detainees to Christina Aguilera music for even 1 minute, goes too far, as ?cruel and unusual?.We?re better than that, people?.Reply 

Replies
Re: iZTnBzvuwq 
Author Thais  Posting date 8/14/2012 1:19:42 AM 
Western law and political tohery have a traditional view that rebellion and war are justifed by certain types and levels of state abuses. 1. If the US occupying forces had acted this way in postwar Japan and Germany, would the occupied not have been justified in resorting to armed resistance?2. What is the difference between case 1 and contemporary jihad against US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan?Leave out for now the question of illegitimate methods such as indiscriminate attacks on civilians, which are ruled out by mainstream Western and Islamic doctrines. El-Sadr's militia in Iraq, for one, seems to be fighting in accordance with some sort of a code of war. 

Post reply
Author *
Topic *
Message *

   Visit our sponsors:
Visual PHP and Web Development, Web Reporting