Torture Techniques Revealed at Gitmo

[Watchman]

Did you know, both the Nazis and Soviets could be real sticklers about laws too ? Resulted in some quite absurd scenarios too.

Just pointing out.

[ShadeHonestus]

Did you know, both the Nazis and Soviets could be real sticklers about laws too ? Resulted in some quite absurd scenarios too.

Just pointing out.

Oh absolutely and intereting introduction by you, the laws for the protection of german blood and honor while interesting as a study are outweighed in their cold sinister intent.

While the introduction for comparison is well received, I'm sure you wouldn't be comparing legal frameworks for classification of detainees, providing them rights and giving legal standards and accountability to our intelligence community to the laws of Nazi Germany..would you?

[ajaxfetish]

I think his point is that moral rectitude > legal justification. Codifying torture doesn't make it right. Especially since we already have it legally coded as wrong in all situations with no exceptions.

Ajax

[ShadeHonestus]

I think his point is that moral rectitude > legal justification. Codifying torture doesn't make it right. Especially since we already have it legally coded as wrong in all situations with no exceptions.

Ajax

I considered this, but that would mean one assumes legal justification would be made absent of morality.

[Watchman]

Oh absolutely and intereting introduction by you, the laws for the protection of german blood and honor while interesting as a study are outweighed in their cold sinister intent.

While the introduction for comparison is well received, I'm sure you wouldn't be comparing legal frameworks for classification of detainees, providing them rights and giving legal standards and accountability to our intelligence community to the laws of Nazi Germany..would you?

I wasn't talking about that. For example Die Reich was a proper Rechtstaat and took it quite seriously; if they for example located in the camps someone wanted for a crime or with outstanding prison sentences, they duly properly plucked the fellow out and put him through the proper judicial procedures. It would not do for someone to not suffer his due legal punishement merely because he was some dirty Jew or Gypsy sent into the death camps, after all.

The Soviets could also be strangely legalistic, given their usual arbitrary style. There were cases where a person sought by the secret police in one member-state of the USSR (it was a federation, remember) fled to another where there was no warrant for him, and in some cases could rise quite high in the local power structure...

Just some examples I remember from the top of my head. The point is, mere legal code and suchlike doesn't really amount to much if the ethics and morals are missing.

[ShadeHonestus]

Just some examples I remember from the top of my head. The point is, mere legal code and suchlike doesn't really amount to much if the ethics and morals are missing.

As stated before what assumption is given that legal code here will be in the absence of morality? Currently here despite ratifying empty resolutions it isn't clear cut outside of the domestic sphere. Currently torture of any shape and size can take place outside our borders and under information privealage it can be classified. In fact this is what is happening and has happened for quite some time, occasional cases making it into courts, but its been a long time since this has been allowed to happen. None of this is subject to the public or the public's courts.

[Watchman]

You don't exactly see me applauding the practice, do you ? But it remains a fact they have to do it covertly; that already keeps a stigma of moral illegitimacy attached to the whole business, or in any case should; I rather worry over how much some people seem willing to gloss over for their own moral convenience these days...

[ajaxfetish]

I'm getting a little confused, Shades. For most of this thread, you've seemed to be advocating the use of torture, albeit in a limited and controlled fashion, but your latest few posts sound almost more like we need to clearly define torture so that we can more effectively prohibit it. Could you clarify your intentions when you say we need a clearer legal framework for torture?

Ajax

[ShadeHonestus]

I'm getting a little confused, Shades. For most of this thread, you've seemed to be advocating the use of torture, albeit in a limited and controlled fashion, but your latest few posts sound almost more like we need to clearly define torture so that we can more effectively prohibit it. Could you clarify your intentions when you say we need a clearer legal framework for torture?

I believe I've said it in previous post, but if you missed it or if I'm just imagining things I'll clarify again. Strict definitions are needed on what techniques we use for many reasons. First its as any good legal code it outlines matters in a fairly unambiguous fashion so that operating within and under that legal code can be done with appropriate jurisdiction for public review. Second, its important simply so people know exactly what is going on, education, the law can't operate free from the principle of education. Third, by defining what we do, we also define what we do not do, there aren't the gray areas outside the law which we can manipulate and if attempted, see public review. Not to mention the need for independant oversight, answerable to civilian authority, of the actual interrogations and this should be in place regardless of whether we "toture" or not.

[ShadeHonestus]

You don't exactly see me applauding the practice, do you ?

Never said you did.

But it remains a fact they have to do it covertly; that already keeps a stigma of moral illegitimacy attached to the whole business,

The whole business meaning a lot more than simply interrogation techniques.

If it is as valuable as deemed necessary to the extent that it has been practiced, move it out of the shadows, legistlate it and as I've said before if our taste for these matters proves wanting the argument for it cannot be maintained. But dismissing it outright and keeping it where it is, does nothing to further anyone's moral highground as that itself is exhibiting neglect and is itself illegitimate.

I rather worry over how much some people seem willing to gloss over for their own moral convenience these days...

Such as...

[Lemur]

If it is as valuable as deemed necessary to the extent that it has been practiced,

Yes, well, that's a wide-open question, now isn't it? And I don't see any attempt being made by anyone in the administration to engage in a meaningful debate about whether torture is, in fact, valuable, and to what extent it is being practiced. The entire thing is a black hole, with only little snippets of information worming their way out.

move it out of the shadows, legistlate it and as I've said before if our taste for these matters proves wanting the argument for it cannot be maintained.

In this lemur's opinion, the torture debacle will only be ended when George W. Bush retires from office. Nothing less will accomplish this. And heaven help us if Mitt ("I'd like to double Gitmo!") Romney follows in his footsteps.

But dismissing it outright and keeping it where it is, does nothing to further anyone's moral highground as that itself is exhibiting neglect and is itself illegitimate.

The moral high ground is neglected and illegitimate? Speak for yourself, buddy ...