On that Yoo Memo

Rick Moran says it all. Right Wing Nut House » AMERICA’S SHAME

I do not wish terrorists to be tortured. I wish them dead. But if they must surrender themselves to our custody or if we find it to our tactical advantage to hold them, then we have no alternative but to treat them as Americans treat prisoners not as the terrorists themselves treat their captives. This is self evident and it is shocking at times to be reviled as a “terrorist lover” just because I wish that our tradition of human decency and adhering to the rule of law be upheld.

The specifics of what is or what is not torture matter not. Inflicting pain is not something you can put on a scale and judge whether an interrogation technique crosses some invisible line between just being a little painful and outright agony. Mental and physical pain inflicted on purpose is a crime according to international law and our domestic statutes. It is pure sophistry to argue otherwise.

Comments

  1. Redhand wrote:

    What is amazing about Yoo’s sophistry is how he blows off the prohibition against torture in the U/N. Convention Against Torture (CAT) that is part of US Law. As noted in the Moran post, Yoo makes “the amazing assertion that the Convention Against Torture doesn’t apply whenever the president says it doesn’t. “Any presidential decision to order interrogations methods that are inconsistent with CAT would amount to a suspension or termination of those treaty provisions.” Doesn’t this mean that whether or not a treaty has been ratified, with or without express reservations, Yoo is saying that the president can implicitly and on his own authority withdraw the United States from the treaty simply by not abiding by it? Is there precedent for such a claim?

    It’s actually worse than that. the definition of towture under CAT, as codified in US law at 22 C.F.R. Sec. 95.1(b) says that torture is:

    Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

    This regulatory definition tracks the official language of CAT, and shows that the drafters had no truck with precisely the kind of bullsh*t justification that Yoo spews. Only a complete legal ***** could come up with the kind of justification Yoo touts here.

    Is it any wonder DoJ tried to keep this a secret as long as that have?

    Posted 02 Apr 2008 at 11:39 pm

  2. canuckistani wrote:

    So why was waterboarding a war crime when the Japanese did it to Americans, but it’s just an enhanced interrogation method now?

    Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 12:17 am

  3. a former european wrote:

    This issue has been debated to death and, as far as I can tell, no one from either side has been convinced to change his/her position. This has become like the abortion debate: you are either pro or con with little or no middle ground.

    On this topic, it is the classic idealist/utopian versus realist/pragmatic. I tend to distrust the utopian solutions because promises of “workers’ paradises” have been shown to lead to Soviet totalitarian states.

    Enough already. Yes, yes, I understand your sparkling pure moral principles which require that thousands of innocent American civilians die rather than one innocent presumed-jihadi be harmed. It sounds great at lower manhattan cocktail parties where everyone can praise themselves about how progressive and enlightened they are. Those folks will not be the ones explaining to some orphaned child that mommy had to die in another WTC fiasco so that we could remain morally pure.

    This debate is nothing new in history. I am reminded of Kipling’s famous quote back in the 1800s that “gentlemen” in England can sleep soundly in their beds because “rough men” defend them and stand ready to repel those who would do them harm. As far as I can see, when it comes to the various sides of this dispute, “never the twain shall meet”.

    Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 12:39 am

  4. Alon Levy wrote:

    Except that military interrogators repeatedly say torture doesn’t work, and totalitarian regimes use torture to get confessions but not real information… in the reality-based community, we like things that give tangible results.

    Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 4:59 am

  5. John the Marine wrote:

    Except that military interrogators repeatedly say torture doesn’t work,

    Depends on who you ask. There is/are always an expert(s) who back one particular point of view. In short I can’t get too worked up about terrorist being totured or weather the feckless and morally bankrupt UN and its worthless rules have been violated. The only point I can see for supporting the idealist/utopian point of view is that we don’t want to harm ourselves morally. But for me that’s a stretch because I would rather the US escape another 911 than be pure in the eyes of international and national do-gooders.

    Hey, A Former European,”Amen!”.

    Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 8:43 am

  6. Redhand wrote:

    Yes, yes, I understand your sparkling pure moral principles which require that thousands of innocent American civilians die rather than one innocent presumed-jihadi be harmed.

    Sorry, but this is nonsense. The pernicious and destructive effects of the Yoo memos is that they give protective coloration to blatent illegality. The idea that the President, in secret, can authorize anything he wants in his role as “commander-in-chief,” including torture, warrantless searches, indefinite and unreviewable detention of American citizens as “enemy combatants,” ad nausiam, even if such actions are expressly prohibited by law, is a road paved straight to dictatorship, albeit in four year increments. How you can fail to see this is beyiond me.

    Al least Hitler had his “Enabling Act.” Bush proceeds more stealthly, by secret internal “legal memos.”

    Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 10:18 am

  7. David C. wrote:

    Except that military interrogators repeatedly say torture doesn’t work

    I’m sorry but logic and everything we know about human beings says otherwise. Pain & fear are powerful motivating forces. Arguments that torture doesn’t work to gain certain types of information, or that it can produce incorrect results are reasonable arguments — although they also apply to other types of interrogation as well. Claiming that torture doesn’t work — period — is simply nonsense.

    I’m not a torturer, have no training or experience, and no deep professional understanding of human psychology and weakness. But if I were a criminal and had your ATM card, I guarantee you with 100% confidence that I could get your PIN number from you with simple torture techniques. And you could get mine if the circumstances were reversed. The are many similar instances where information is specific and verifiable and can be extracted thru torture or even the mere threat of torture.

    You actually believe that a professional torturer, say a member of the Egyptian secret police who has been breaking human beings for 20 years, isn’t going to be able to rip some accurate information out of prisoners? Please. Is he always going to get the right information? No. But will torture sometimes produce accurate results. Yes. It’s an interrogation technique. Its success or failure depends on the interrogator, the prisoner, and the information in question.

    Argue against torture on moral and legal grounds all you want. There are plenty of good arguments against using torture. Pretending it can’t work isn’t one of them.

    Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 10:24 am

  8. David C. wrote:

    Sorry, didn’t mean to quote myself.

    Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 10:25 am

  9. canuckistani wrote:

    You actually believe that a professional torturer, say a member of the Egyptian secret police who has been breaking human beings for 20 years, isn’t going to be able to rip some accurate information out of prisoners? Please. Is he always going to get the right information? No. But will torture sometimes produce accurate results. Yes.

    Your argument here is based on the premise that there is information there to be produced. When one considers how many potential torture victims are innocent civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or even more disgustingly, were informed on by personal or tribal enemies, torture takes on a far more reprehensible cast.

    Let me make this point again- I live in a city where an AQ plot to blow up the subway I ride to work was foiled, and I would rather take the risk of another attack than be protected by torturers. It’s part of living in a free, principled country.

    Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 10:56 am

  10. David C. wrote:

    Your argument here is based on the premise that there is information there to be produced.

    It is, yes. Obviously if you are torturing someone that doesn’t know anything you aren’t going to get any good information. Along with abusing an innocent victim you are actually likely to get false information that could actively hinder your efforts by leading you on wild goose chases.

    When one considers how many potential torture victims are innocent civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or even more disgustingly, were informed on by personal or tribal enemies, torture takes on a far more reprehensible cast.

    I totally agree. I’ve have made the point on these torture threads many times that it matters a lot who is being tortured. I am strongly against torturing suspects.

    I would rather take the risk of another attack than be protected by torturers. It’s part of living in a free, principled country.

    I can respect that view but mine is different. I believe that most general rules have exceptions. If we have in custody a known terrorist leader, (and I mean known beyond a shadow of a doubt), and if torture appears to be the best method for extracting information that we need to protect the country, then I have no problem with that particular individual being tortured. Torturing the guilty is not the same thing as torturing the innocent or the suspected. I guess the main difference is that you and others see torture as absolutely, inherently morally wrong, whereas I see it from a more relative perspective.

    And yes I know there are still problems. How do we square that with our laws against torture? Do we really want to have a group of trained torturers working in the U.S.? (If they aren’t trained in it and skilled at it they aren’t going to be producing good results). I’m not certain how to answer those questions, or how we set up a system that ensures that torture is only used under certain extraordinary circumstances. But I still don’t think it should be ruled out entirely in every case, regardless of the circumstances.

    Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 11:25 am

  11. David C. wrote:

    Redhand,

    Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person

    The problem with quoting this is that it is subject to interpretation. What does “severe” mean? Severe pain or suffering means different things to different people. Language like that leaves plenty of room for those who wish to argue that a particular technique is or is not torture. It is quite easy for people to argue that since waterboarding is physically harmless, and only involves temporary mental distress, that it isn’t inflicting “severe” mental pain, and therefore doesn’t fall under the statute.

    I agree with you that the President doesn’t have the authority to decide which laws he wants to follow, but that statute leaves plenty of weasel room for various legal interpretations regarding individual interrogation techniques.

    Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 11:48 am

  12. a former european wrote:

    Redhand, you are correct that any President should not be allowed to willy-nilly set aside the rights and protections of US citizens. That, however, is a straw man argument. The jihadis in question, whether at Gitmo or elsewhere, are NOT US citizens. Treating everyone in the world as US citizens by default is leftist, universalist, utopian claptrap. Yes, I know the Revolution recognizes no borders in the progressive class struggle but, Bolshevik ideology aside, citizenship still has substantive meaning in the world.

    Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 3:46 pm

  13. Alon Levy wrote:

    David, you’re not producing evidence; you’re talking in what-if and it-must-be-true terms. That’s sci fi, not pol sci.

    If you do want evidence, you should look no further than the French in Algeria. Traditionally, France prohibited torture. In Algeria it became so frustrated it legalized it, and made it its primary interrogation technique. It believed torture was so effective that at one point, when it caught a terrorist who had detailed attack plans in his pocket, it tortured him instead of checking his pockets. (The terrorist attack succeeded.)

    Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 4:16 pm

  14. canuckistani wrote:

    Redhand, you are correct that any President should not be allowed to willy-nilly set aside the rights and protections of US citizens.

    Jose Padilla is a US citizen whose rights were set aside at the order of the President, with justification by Yoo. And since the Western legal system is run by precedent, if it is allowed once, it can happen to anyone that the President declares to be an enemy combatant (whatever that means).
    President Clinton II could do it to you.

    The question of whether the President can override treaties (which have the force of law) at his pleasure is also brought forward by the Yoo memorandum. I will concede that there is legalistic wiggle-room about the status of insurgent prisoners, but Yoo is claiming that President has the authority to set aside international agreements about the treatment of prisoners at his pleasure. This doesn’t even have the legal force of Hitler’s Enabling Act (pardon the Godwin) because it is merely a legal opinion from an administration lawyer rather than an act of legislation.

    Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 4:51 pm

  15. David C. wrote:

    Alon,

    David, you’re not producing evidence; you’re talking in what-if and it-must-be-true terms. That’s sci fi, not pol sci.

    No, i’m talking about reality. The ATM scenario I mentioned actually happened in Thailand when rogue police stole a man’s wallet, took his ATM card and tortured his PIN number out of him. I don’t have the link any more, but it was contained in a human rights report. (It’s probably happened a bunch of other times as well). Human beings respond to pain, along with fear, despair, and other emotions produced by torture. That’s a fact. Pretending that torture can’t be used to extract information is simply a denial of reality. Again, i’m not arguing that it’s the best method, that it works to get all types of information, or making any sweeping claims — just that it can and does work to sometimes obtain accurate information. It is just another method of interrogation, and it has its own strengths and weaknesses as a method.

    If you do want evidence, you should look no further than the French in Algeria.

    You do know that there are torturers from the Algeria war who maintain to this day that they extracted valuable information that stopped bomb attacks, right? Yes, I know their arguments are self-serving, but Algeria is in no way evidence that torture somehow doesn’t work. Saying torture can’t work is plainly illogical and goes against everything we know about human beings. The person making such an irrational argument has the burden of evidence, not the one pointing out the illogic.

    I can’t prove to you that torture works without actually torturing you. We don’t have studies looking at the effectiveness of torture because torture is ugly, degrading and dehumanizing, and we don’t conduct academic studies on it — because that would require that we torture a bunch of people and study the results. Former torturers that will talk about it overwhelmingly claim that it works. So if you want to go on anecdotal evidence, it doesn’t favor your argument. There’s a BBC article on the web you can google that interviews a number of them

    Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 5:29 pm

  16. David C. wrote:

    Jose Padilla is a US citizen whose rights were set aside at the order of the President, with justification by Yoo. And since the Western legal system is run by precedent, if it is allowed once

    That was the sole exception and it was not allowed. The appeals court ruled that the President cannot detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants without the clear approval of Congress.

    Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 5:36 pm

  17. David C. wrote:

    Uthai says that at the house he was made to sit on the dirt floor and someone pulled him up by the face, saying that they wanted to get a look at him. Then he says that he was kicked (with boots) on his chest and back repeatedly. After that, his watch and wallet were taken. He was told to give the ATM card numbers. When he refused, he was again kicked in the back until he told them. He says that he recognised Pol. Sgt Ekachai’s voice saying, “If you are lying to me, I will beat you again.” Later he found out from his relatives that money had been withdrawn from the accounts.

    This is the incident I was referencing above, from an Asian Human Rights Commission report. I found a number of other incidents where people were tortured into giving up their PIN numbers. This is a prime example of the type of information that torture can be highly effective in extracting — specific information that can be independently confirmed. If the prisoner lies he gets tortured again until he gives correct information.

    There are plenty of intelligence scenarios that involve such information other than just obtaining passwords or codes, such as finding locations for weapons caches, explosive devices, and anything else that is hidden, needs to be found, and can then be investigated.

    Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 6:21 pm

  18. a former european wrote:

    I agree that Padilla should have been accorded the rights and protections of a US citizen, the other 99.99999% of jihadi detainess should not.

    Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 6:59 pm

  19. Redhand wrote:

    I agree that Padilla should have been accorded the rights and protections of a US citizen, the other 99.99999% of jihadi detainess should not.

    You guys are missing the point about the Convention Against Torture’s reach. It isn’t intended to protect USA citizens. It’s principal purposes are: (1) to prevent signatory states from torturing the citizens of other countries:

    for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind

    and (2) to require signatory states to afford alien victims of foreign state torture various forms of asylum-like refuge in the signatory states.

    The torture definition specifically “does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”

    In other words, if we capture, try and convict bin Laden, then sentence him to death, the suffering he experiences while dying from lethal injection is OK. But we agree not to flay him alive as a form of retribution, burn him to death by necklacing, or starve him to death, punishments whose proscribtion isn’t limited the the 8th Amendment, folks.

    Yoo’s memo basically says that Bush can do anything he wants as C-in-C in time of “war.” It is utter sophistry.

    Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 1:06 am

  20. Redhand wrote:

    punishments whose proscribtion isn’t limited the the 8th Amendment, folks.

    What I meant to say here was that the Eight amendment applies to all individuals subject to U.S. jurisdiction, not just citizens.

    Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 1:12 am

  21. David C. wrote:

    What I meant to say here was that the Eight amendment applies to all individuals subject to U.S. jurisdiction, not just citizens.

    That’s highly debatable. Also:

    Limitation of the Clause to Criminal Punishments .–The Eighth Amendment deals only with criminal punishment, and has no application to civil processes.

    How does a clause that applies only to criminal punishments somehow govern the treatment of alien enemy combatants/foreign terrorists?

    Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 8:59 am

  22. David C. wrote:

    Above quote was taken from the annotations to the amendment found here

    Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 9:04 am

  23. canuckistani wrote:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    The implication that I see here is that rights are not solely applicable to US citizens but to “all men”. Certainly the rights of enemy combatants and foreign terrorists would be covered by the signature of the Convention Against Torture. Now, I personally don’t care whether you call the criminals and try them, or prisoners of war and treat them according to the Geneva conventions, but follow the rules you agreed to, without granting the president what are essentially dicatatorial powers to overturn treaties.

    Oh yeah… “jihadis” who are not captured in combat but arrested at the word of informers deserve a chance to clear their names.

    Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 10:32 am

  24. David C. wrote:

    canuckistani,

    Certainly the rights of enemy combatants and foreign terrorists would be covered by the signature of the Convention Against Torture

    Well, that’s the problem. I, and many others, disagree that non-uniformed enemy combatants and foreign terrorists have any rights whatsoever. Rights are inherently nebulous concepts that are given practical meaning by specific provisions found in the constitution, by our laws, and by the interpretation of both. Whether or not specific rights of U.S. citizens apply to non-citizens is highly debatable in each case.

    Oh yeah… “jihadis” who are not captured in combat but arrested at the word of informers deserve a chance to clear their names.

    No, they do not, in my opinion. Suspicious aliens arrested during wartime have never been accorded the normal rights available to U.S. citizens. And there’s no particular reason we should start extending such rights to jihadi suspects. That doesn’t mean they should be tortured or otherwise abused, but they are not criminal U.S. citizens and should not be affored the same due process. Wartime situations are fundamentally different than peacetime onse, and citizens differ from non-citizens.

    The implication that I see here is that rights are not solely applicable to US citizens but to “all men”

    This is an natural rights argument and I don’t really want to argue that with you since I have already had one extremely long and heated debate about it with libertarians on another blog. Debating against the concept of natural rights with a libertarian is much like arguing in favor of atheism with someone who is fanatically religious. But at any rate I reject the concept of natural rights, inherent rights, whatever you want to call them. And therefore I disagree with a natural rights based argument.

    Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 1:18 pm

  25. John the Marine wrote:

    Hey Canuck, The Declaration of Indepence is a historical document and not part of the Constitution or Federal Law. It expresses idealistic sentiments but has no influence respecting issues of Constitutional Rights or who is protected under them.

    Now the preamble to the US Constitution does give insight as to who the supreme law of the land covers;

    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    You know ourselves as in, citizens of The United States and our posterity, like you know, future generations of citizens.

    However, I have to be frank respecting your point about treaty obligations which rests on Article VI of the US Constitution and seems pretty clear when in the second paragraph it states:

    This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    However, you overlooked something, terrorists aren’t enemy soldiers, or belong to another recognized catagory of combatent, because they don’t serve in the armed forces of any recognized nation state and do not respect or abide by the rules and customs of war. Therfore they are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention. Also they are not citizens or legal residents of the US or any of its territories (with the exception of Pedilla and other home grown scum). Which means we can do what we like with them period because they are not protected by the Constitution as citizens or via treaty as the supreme law of the land.

    Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 1:25 pm

  26. JustinH wrote:

    Pain & fear are powerful motivating forces. Arguments that torture doesn’t work to gain certain types of information, or that it can produce incorrect results are reasonable arguments — although they also apply to other types of interrogation as well. Claiming that torture doesn’t work — period — is simply nonsense.

    Your PIN-number scenario works because the truthfullness of the information can be determined right there, on the spot. If, on the other hand, the CIA is water-boarding me, I’ll make up any stories I can imagine in order to get them to stop.

    Once we get into the mindset of “x-number of American lives [possibly] saved is worth inflicting x-amount of humanitarian crime”, where do we set the boundary? Are 10 American lives worth torturing 1 possibly-innocent non-American? Is saving one American life worth killing an innocent Brazilian or Frenchman? It quickly becomes an absurd calculation.

    P.S., Former european, the quote is by Orwell:

    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

    Although he says something similar in his essay about Kipling:

    We all live by robbing Asiatic coolies, and those of us who are “enlightened” all maintain that those coolies ought to be set free; but our standard of living, and hence our “enlightenment,” demands that the robbery shall continue. A humanitarian is always a hypocrite, and Kipling’s understanding of this is perhaps the central secret of his power to create telling phrases. It would be difficult to hit off the one-eyed pacifism of the English in fewer words than in the phrase, “making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep.”

    Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 4:27 pm

  27. JustinH wrote:

    terrorists aren’t enemy soldiers… they are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention. Also they are not citizens or legal residents of the US or any of its territories …Which means we can do what we like with them period because they are not protected by the Constitution as citizens or via treaty as the supreme law of the land.

    Illegal immigrants aren’t US citizens, are are not in the US legally, so it seems to follow that they aren’t entitled to any protection under US law. I don’t see why they should be considered protected by any other country’s law, as they have implicitly renounced their home citizenship by entering the United States.

    Indeed, couldn’t we argue that by invading our territory, they have become a kind of “illegal combatant”?

    We could make a substantial dent in the amount of illegal immigrants who stay in the US if we began to torture the ones that we captured. They are right-less, state-less people, are they not? If we began shooting them out of hand — on the border, in the Arizona desert, in whatever restaurant kitchens or garment factories we discovered them in, what nation could complain to us about it?

    Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 4:35 pm

  28. canuckistani wrote:

    This is an natural rights argument and I don’t really want to argue that with you since I have already had one extremely long and heated debate about it with libertarians on another blog.

    Agreed. Natural rights is a can of worms with 50% more worms.

    Suspicious aliens arrested during wartime have never been accorded the normal rights available to U.S. citizens.

    These aren’t aliens, they’re Iraqi citizens in their own country and homes subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention and even torture with no appeal at the word of informers. It smells like injustice to me, and it smells like a bad idea when you’re trying to win hearts and minds.

    Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 5:34 pm

  29. a former european wrote:

    JustinH: Thank you for the clarification. I should have remembered it was Orwell rather than Kipling. They had many similar viewpoints and I tend to forget which one said what. The pitfalls of growing older.

    Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 7:08 pm

  30. David C. wrote:

    These aren’t aliens, they’re Iraqi citizens in their own country and homes subjected to arbitrary arrest

    I thought we were talking about U.S. policy which would class Iraqis and other non-U.S. citizens as aliens. If you are talking about the behavior of the Iraqi government then that’s a different issue. Aliens that we detain who are citizens of other countries and not stateless persons, do have legal recourse thru the intercession of their home governments — especially if those government have treaties with the U.S. as many do.

    Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 7:50 pm

  31. David C. wrote:

    Your PIN-number scenario works because the truthfullness of the information can be determined right there, on the spot. If, on the other hand, the CIA is water-boarding me, I’ll make up any stories I can imagine in order to get them to stop.

    Justin,

    If you read my earlier posts you will see that I agree that torture can produce false results and that its effectiveness or lack thereof depends on the information you are looking for, the interrogator, the prisoner, and many other factors relevant to that each specific instance — just like any other interrogation method.

    Also, it’s not a good idea to assume that torturers aren’t going to be able to tell someone is lying, or even that a prisoner is going to have the courage to lie in the first place. Again, people react differently depending on their individual circumstances. I don’t think anyone can say for sure what they are going to do or not do if they haven’t faced torture. Just like it is very difficult to predict how you will react in combat, or any other life-threatening situation until you actually find yourself in it.

    Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 8:00 pm

  32. John the Marine wrote:

    Illegal immigrants aren’t US citizens, are are not in the US legally, so it seems to follow that they aren’t entitled to any protection under US law. I don’t see why they should be considered protected by any other country’s law, as they have implicitly renounced their home citizenship by entering the United States.

    Indeed, couldn’t we argue that by invading our territory, they have become a kind of “illegal combatant”?

    Yes, could try to make the above arguement but it would have one major flaw. Illegal aliens are not engaging in terrorism and don’t belong to international organizations committed to US destruction. Also, I’m not so sure that I buy the notion that some one who sneeks into the US looking for work has renounced their citizenship to their country of origin. Illegal aliens are criminals, minor criminals, and should be treated as such when caught, say deported. Torture? Enemy invaders? Nope, that’s too far for even me.

    Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 9:07 pm

  33. Redhand wrote:

    Also they are not citizens or legal residents of the US or any of its territories (with the exception of Pedilla and other home grown scum). Which means we can do what we like with them period because they are not protected by the Constitution as citizens or via treaty as the supreme law of the land.

    Ah, no John. Just because someone is an “illegal alien” doesn’t mean that s/he has no rights here. For starters, one has the right not to be murdered on the slightest pretext: we’re not talking the helots in ancient Sparta. Also, candidly, some “illegal aliens” are entitled to apply for permanent residency, if they entered legally, or in some cases if their deportation would lead to extreme hardship to qualifying US citzens and green card holders.

    Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 9:30 pm

  34. canuckistani wrote:

    I thought we were talking about U.S. policy which would class Iraqis and other non-U.S. citizens as aliens. If you are talking about the behavior of the Iraqi government then that’s a different issue.

    In this instance I was talking about Iraqi citizens being arrested and imprisoned as suspected jihadis by American armed forces in Iraq. As I say, catch them with a bomb and a remote and they’re fair game. Catch them because Abdul the Sunni ratted out his Shia neighbour? I don’t like it.

    Posted 05 Apr 2008 at 2:57 am

  35. Alon Levy wrote:

    Illegal aliens are not engaging in terrorism and don’t belong to international organizations committed to US destruction.

    Neither do the Abu Ghraib victims. Forget for a moment that the Red Cross estimated that 80% of the prison’s inmates were innocent; those who weren’t were trying to drive the US out of Iraq, not out of Washington.

    Posted 05 Apr 2008 at 3:27 am

  36. David C. wrote:

    those who weren’t were trying to drive the US out of Iraq, not out of Washington

    Completely irrelevant from the U.S. perspective.. Threats to U.S. forces in Iraq, or anywhere else, are still threats to the U.S. We don’t need to have terrorists actually striking U.S. territory in order to worry about them.

    Posted 05 Apr 2008 at 9:04 am

  37. Alon Levy wrote:

    Okay, but don’t use florid language like “committed to US destruction.” They’re not.

    Posted 05 Apr 2008 at 7:06 pm

« Prehistoric insects locked in amber now visible
$42 million for Obama in March »