[Osx-nutters] Anti-Torture Bill Fails in Senate

[Charles Bennett]

On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:39 PM, Kevin Callahan wrote:

>
> http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/17/headlines#4
>
> Anti-Torture Bill Fails in Senate
> Meanwhile on Friday, Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would  
> have required the CIA to adhere to the Army’s field manual of  
> interrogations which bans waterboarding, mock executions and other  
> forms of torture.
>

In case anyone wants to actually see what it says..    fm34-52  is the  
manual they are talking about.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/index.html


The only think I see relevant is

"PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCE
The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to  
unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and  
is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience  
indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the  
cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force  
is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage  
subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say  
whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of  
force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery,  
or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in  
questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be  
confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized  
techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of  
mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are  
intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a  
source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as  
their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of  
international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.

Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force  
renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the  
threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the  
restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs  
render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as  
interrogation techniques."



OTOH, the manual only deals with POWs.    Not illegal combatants (or  
whatever they are called) so I suspect that that is the point of  
contention.

If you agree to use this standard, then you may be in effect agreeing  
that they are POWs.   Agree or not, I'm pretty sure that the admin  
wants to avoid that.

OTOOH, if you DID decide that they are members of an organized army,  
then their attacks against civilian targets would make hanging a  
reasonable outcome and not require civilian involvment at all, since  
they would be dealt with is POWs that had committed violations of the  
rules of warefare.

Doing it out of uniform would open them to immediate battlefield  
execution as non uniformed combatants. (though we would get less  
information out of them that way)

Perhaps there *is* an upside to following this document..



> Mukasey Blocks Congressional Probe of Destroyed CIA Tapes
>
> Attorney General Michael Mukasey is coming under intense criticism  
> by Democrats for his handling of the scandal surrounding the CIA’s  
> destruction of hundreds of hours of videotape showing interrogations  
> inside secret CIA prisons. Within a single 24-hour period, the  
> Justice Department warned a federal judge to back-off of his inquiry  
> into the destruction of the tapes, told Congress to delay its own  
> investigation into the matter, and refused to cooperate with  
> congressional inquiries into the Justice Department’s role in the  
> elimination of the tapes. The American Civil Liberties Union called  
> the Justice Department’s actions a stunning rebuke of the  
> constitutional system of checks and balances.

I think the tapes should not have been destroyed, but simply marked as  
classified, top secret.  (shows convert peoples faces and reveals  
methods..)   That way congress could have seen whatever they wanted,  
after being read into the program, but the first time a tape was  
leaked, or they spoke about what they saw, they could charge the  
congress critter with treason.   Win, Win as far as I'm concerned.


=c=


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.tit-wank.com/pipermail/osx-nutters/attachments/20071218/305770bf/attachment-0001.htm