CIA destroyed tapes despite court orders

[grampster]

A book I read recently described a fait accompli being delivered to governments of every foreign state that is known to harbor or support radical extremists that may engage America by attacking us or any of our national interests using wmd's or chemical or biological weapons.  The fait accompli listed 122 locations that would be totally destroyed immediately after any attack of that nature.

Perhaps then the governments that are playing both ends against the middle would get serious about who they support or harbor.

I'm not so sure that this might not be a bad idea.  The first rule of war in my book is that if we are placed in the position that requires war, we need not be shy about what tools we use to win it.  The will to win is a cold decision.  Mass transportation and other technologies change the make-up of the ability of our enemies to harm us.  The rules have changed.

As the philosopher once said, "Revenge is a dish that is best served cold!"
 

[Paddy]

A book I read recently described a fait accompli being delivered to governments of every foreign state that is known to harbor or support radical extremists that may engage America by attacking us or any of our national interests using wmd's or chemical or biological weapons.  The fait accompli listed 122 locations that would be totally destroyed immediately after any attack of that nature.

That's the single best idea yet.  Open, straightforward, inexpensive deterrence.  However, it doesn't provide the cover for huge, multibillion dollar transfers of wealth from the public treasury to the private sector, as does a 'war' and 'occupation'.   So it's not likely to be adopted.

[SteveS]

Setting aside any discussions on treaty obligations, US law bans torture.  See 18 U.S.C. 2340:

(a) Offense. - Whoever outside the United States commits or
attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to
any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be
punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction. - There is jurisdiction over the activity
prohibited in subsection (a) if -
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States,
irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged
offender.

(c) Conspiracy. - A person who conspires to commit an offense
under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other
than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the
offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

The definition of torture from that act:

As used in this chapter -
(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under
the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical
or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering
incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his
custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged
mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of
severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened
administration or application, of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be
subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the
administration or application of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
personality.

Waterboarding, IMO, certainly fits within this definition.  The current administration has worked very hard to find people for the Justice Department that will say that it does not.  See this article:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/11/how-low-can-they-go.html

[grampster]

SteveS,

What you just posted would probably preclude Hillary from being president. 

[wooderson]

i have a question i've asked often never got an answer  my understanding was we never ratified one of the accords  does that affect compliance?

Not really. Whether a treaty has been ratified or not is largely irrelevant - we play along with the rules laid down because we choose to. Who's going to stop us? There is no international court or multinational force that can make the US do anything we don't want to do.

Traditionally, we've followed (in the public eye) things like the Geneva conventions out of a desire to protect American soldiers should they be taken captive, and also because the accords were considered 'the right thing to do.'

[ilbob]

I sort of like McCains idea on this situation.

It amounts to this. If the situation is dire enough, and you are willing to take the risk on yourself, go ahead and torture to your hearts content knowing full well it may well get your butt into serious trouble. Presumably if you are right, your actions get ignored, or someone up the food chain steps in. If you are wrong, you deal with the legal consequences. It is not a perfect solution, but there are no perfect solutions.

[RevDisk]

i have a question i've asked often never got an answer  my understanding was we never ratified one of the accords  does that affect compliance?

The War Crimes Act of 1996 covers all Americans.  UCMJ covers all military personnel, and is very specific on treatment of detainees.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html


In all honesty, when I attended my first "Law of Land Warfare" classes in the .mil, I never expected to hear Americans arguing on whether or not torture should be allowed.  Heck, the most of us rolled our eyes when we were told torturing folks is a no-no.  Seemed like common sense at the time.  Goes to show how far we've come as a country in such a short time, and is worrisome about our future. 

[Len Budney]

n all honesty, when I attended my first "Law of Land Warfare" classes in the .mil, I never expected to hear Americans arguing on whether or not torture should be allowed.  Heck, the most of us rolled our eyes when we were told torturing folks is a no-no.  Seemed like common sense at the time...

The instructors probably still say it. Now they just wink at the class and pantomime holding a haji's head under water while they do it.

--Len.

[Jamisjockey]

I sort of like McCains idea on this situation.

It amounts to this. If the situation is dire enough, and you are willing to take the risk on yourself, go ahead and torture to your hearts content knowing full well it may well get your butt into serious trouble. Presumably if you are right, your actions get ignored, or someone up the food chain steps in. If you are wrong, you deal with the legal consequences. It is not a perfect solution, but there are no perfect solutions.

McCain's stance is a cop-out.  Putting the burden on those in the field to decide if they should risk ending thier career or going to jail vs. possibly saving the country from a terrorist attack, or gaining intelligence on our enemies?  That's not leadership, its a refusal to take a hard stance.  I'd respect him more if he said we should start yanking fingernails and screw any conventions, accords, or agreements. At least then he'd be making a hard fast decision.

[roo_ster]

I'm with jamisjockey.  McCain's stance is: "Congress will claim the moral high ground and preen before all...while we expect you bastards in the trenches to do what you have to to save our butts, after which we'll prosecute you and hang your butts out to dry."

If a politician expects our men & women to go hammer & tongs on a jihadi, that politician needs to have the courage to vote on & pass legislation making it legal.

I am still against torture, properly defined as torture.

[ilbob]

I'm with jamisjockey.  McCain's stance is: "Congress will claim the moral high ground and preen before all...while we expect you bastards in the trenches to do what you have to to save our butts, after which we'll prosecute you and hang your butts out to dry."

If a politician expects our men & women to go hammer & tongs on a jihadi, that politician needs to have the courage to vote on & pass legislation making it legal.

I am still against torture, properly defined as torture.

McCain's way has worked at least since the French and Indian Wars. The only thing really different now is that an attempt is being made to control it by rules and regulations. Ironically, what is actually an attempt to protect detainees by abusing them in the most minimal way possible is being misrepresented as something sinister.

Do you really think that American soldiers have not used coercive techniques against the enemy before? The enemy used it, so did we. It just was not talked about openly in an attempt to sabotage a country's security for political benefit.

[geronimotwo]

Do you really think that American soldiers have not used coercive techniques against the enemy before? The enemy used it, so did we. It just was not talked about openly in an attempt to sabotage a country's security for political benefit

so, are you saying it's ok to discuss these methods as long as it's not for political gain? it seems to me that if it results in political GAIN, then the majority of americans are against it, and therefore should not be in the current toolbox.

[gunsmith]

ANSWER didn't exist during the Clinton administration. Shocking that they never protested...
Likewise, the Workers World folks are a tiny group of Maoists who were never involved in any kind of mass action prior to the Bush era. (and are once again irrelevant)
And Code Pink? Nope, didn't exist either.

As for why there were few protests in general: no war, buddy. Hard to mount a campaign against missile strikes that have already ceased. The only long-term event of Clinton's tenure was the Balkan incursion, and it did receive broad support, as campaigns framed in human rights terms are wont to do.

You're not arguing with a young conservative here, you're arguing with an old anarchist who was at most of the big protest throughout the 1980's. "Answer" wasn't active during the Clinton admin because their friends were in power. "Answer" has been around for a long time, they just call it different names during different Republican admins. Code Pink is simply the latest incarnation of Medea's minions.
I saw teeny demo's against Jimmy Carter for mining the Nicaraguan harbor and supporting the Contras and huge demo's against Reagan for the same kind of stuff, the same people (bought and paid for by the dems) who organized the giant demo's against Reagan and Bush 41 are the same people calling themselves "Answer" now.

as campaigns framed in human rights terms are wont to do

Oh, I see bombing hospitals and TV stations and bridges (and the Chinese Consulate) are "human rights"...oooooh I see, when Democrats go to war and the liberal media cheers it on and the Hollywood nitwits say "go team"
Then all of a sudden it is ok to kill innocent civilians, oh, ok.

Thanks for clearing it all up!

[brer]

ilbob

Regardless of whether the US signed onto the last rounds of the geneva convention or not.  We are signatories unless we withdraw from the convention.  Actual verbiage from the convention.  You do not get to pick and choose which rules you are going to follow if you are going to remain a signatory.

Under geneva convention rules, if a person does not fall under POW status, he falls under civilian status and still has rights guarenteed to him.  Among those is freedom from torture.

Failing that, the hague conventions are still in effect, which we are still signees.  These also preclude torture of civilians.

Read the conventions sometime.  All of them, before you even think that what we are doing is legal under the geneva conventions.

[LAK]

What Len Budney said.

And it is amazing how smoothly the concept of untermensch has come back, into the realm of subjectivity, and even open acceptence.

------------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org