Torture and US Foreign Policy

nogodsnomasters85

Not Stirred
Journalist, author, and Vanity Fair columnist, Christopher Hitchens agreed to be subjected to the 'interrogation technique' called "waterboarding", which has rather recently entered our cultural lexicon. Waterboarding has it's roots in the Spanish inquisition and has been practiced by many regimes including the Chinese Communist Party,and Cambodia's Khmer Rouge. Although, in today's political discourse, proponants, mainly on the political right, brush off criticism, characterizing waterboarding as a benign, and relatively harmless technique. After enduring the experience Hitchens' says ;"Believe me, it's torture!"
Watch the Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58
Some important considerations:

Is there such a thing as "humane" torture?

Can a society practice torture and rightfully be considered civilized?

To my fellow Americans; Is this practice compatible with the libertarian, democratic philosophy on which our country was founded? What are the ethical and moral implications on us, as citizens?

To any foreigners; Has the adoption of techniques such as these as a matter of policy changed how you, or those around you, feel about America? How you see us?

Discuss.
 
This makes me so angry. I live in the UK but I think it's only a matter of time til we start introducing stuff like that, seeing as our Prime Minister, no matter who it is, is always your Presidents bitch. :mad:
 
Great topic. Although I can't imagine that anybody would disagree that this is completely ridiculous. The so called fight for freedom and democracy is now using the same violation of human rights it is fighting against. It is like I have said before: the ones who are in power decides what is torture and what is "a humane method to get our enemies to talk". The concept of Human Rights seems quite meaningless because aparrantly they can be enterpreted very differently in different countries. The so called freedom only applies to those who agree with us. It's all about power.

My feelings about America has changed but that happened a long time ago, especially with the expression "war against terror". War is terror.
 
What about this?

Mexican Police Torture Videos Cause Uproar
Cops Say Practicing Harsh Techniques On Each Other Is Essential Training In Drug War


Videos showing Leon police practicing torture techniques on a fellow officer and dragging another through vomit at the instruction of a U.S. adviser created an uproar Tuesday in Mexico, which has struggled to eliminate torture in law enforcement.

Two of the videos - broadcast by national television networks and displayed on newspaper Internet sites - showed what Leon city Police Chief Carlos Tornero described as training for an elite unit that must face "real-life, high-stress situations," such as kidnapping and torture by organized crime groups.

But many Mexicans saw a sinister side, especially at a moment when police and soldiers across the country are struggling with scandals over alleged abuses.

"They are teaching police ... to torture!" read the headline in the Mexico City newspaper Reforma.

Human rights investigators in Guanajuato state, where Leon is located, are looking into the tapes, and the National Human Rights Commission also expressed concerned.

"It's very worrisome that there may be training courses that teach people to torture," said Raul Plascencia, one of the commission's top inspectors.

One of the videos, first obtained by the newspaper El Heraldo de Leon, shows police appearing to squirt water up a man's nose - a technique once notorious among Mexican police. Then they dunk his head in a hole said to be full of excrement and rats. The man gasps for air and moans repeatedly.

In another video, an unidentified English-speaking trainer has an exhausted agent roll into his own vomit. Other officers then drag him through the mess.

"These are no more than training exercises for certain situations, but I want to stress that we are not showing people how to use these methods," Tornero said.

These are no more than training exercises for certain situations, but I want to stress that we are not showing people how to use these methods.
Chief Carlos Tornero,
Leon city Police
He said the English-speaking man was part of a private U.S. security company helping to train the agents, but he refused to give details.

A third video transmitted by the Televisa network showed officers jumping on the ribs of a suspect curled into a fetal position in the bed of a pickup truck. Tornero said that the case, which occurred several months earlier, was under investigation and that the officers involved had disappeared.

Mexican police often find themselves in the midst of brutal battles between drug gangs. Officials say that 450 police, soldiers and prosecutors have lost their lives in the fight against organized crime since December 2006.

At the same time, several recent high-profile scandals over alleged thuggery and ineptness have reignited criticism of police conduct. In Mexico City last month, 12 people died in a botched police raid on a disco.

The National Human Rights Commission has documented 634 cases of military abuse since President Felipe Calderon sent more than 20,000 soldiers across the nation to battle drug gangs.

And $400 million in drug-war aid for Mexico that was just signed into law by President Bush doesn't require the U.S. to independently verify that the military has cleaned up its fight, as many American lawmakers and Mexican human rights groups had insisted.

The videos may seem shocking, but training police to withstand being captured is not unusual, said Robert McCue, the director of the private, U.S. firm IES Interactive Training, which provides computer-based training systems in Mexico.

"With the attacks on police and security forces in Mexico that have increased due to the drug cartel wars, I'm not surprised to see this specialized kind of training in resisting and surviving captivity and torture," he said.

***********************************************************

So our former (???) cocaine abusing President Bush finds it necessary to give all this money to Mexico to fight their War On Some Drugs and then to teach them torture techniques so that they might withstand being tortured? And this is so that we can continue to criminalize drug abuse and addiction and create a situation that results in the criminal enterprise we see today as a result of that?
It's time to decriminalize drugs. Drugs are as available as they have ever been, and when people are addicted the threat of jail is not enough to make them stop. Some drugs are none of the government's business anyway. Why do they get to decide that very personal decision of how you choose to alter your consciousness?
Other harder drugs can still be obtained, and really I'm not sure if the use of these drugs is anyone's business either, except that some drugs are known to ruin lives. Making them illegal does not prevent this though.

Anyway, back on topic, I'm not sure I like the idea of this journalist doing this, as I feel that in some way it makes it acceptable. Even though he says he was tortured, making it into a stunt to sell magazines is questionable. On the other hand, maybe it's good to spread the word about what's happening as some people still don't seem to understand.
 
We have to vote out those that stand by and let this torture take place, and that means pretty much all of them. However there are some braver representatives that are asking some questions about all of this.

The 'W.' Stands for 'War Criminal'
The House and a shot not yet heard 'round the world

by Nat Hentoff
June 24th, 2008 12:00 AM

In a June 6 letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey—largely ignored by a press immersed in the future of Hillary Clinton—56 Democrats in the House of Representatives asked for "an immediate investigation with the appointment of a special counsel to determine whether actions taken by the President, his Cabinet, and other Administration officials are in violation of the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441) . . . and other U.S. and international laws."

This isn't front-page news?

The letter began with a brief account of the notorious facts about Abu Ghraib ("sexual exploitation and torture") and Guantánamo ("an independent investigation by the International Committee of the Red Cross documented several . . . acts of torture . . . including soaking a prisoner's head in alcohol and lighting it on fire"). Nor was "coercive interrogation" in Afghanistan omitted: "In October 2005, The New York Times reported that three detainees were killed during interrogations in Afghanistan and Iraq by CIA agents or CIA contractors."

This is not a call for articles of impeachment. Bush will soon be gone, and the new president and Congress have far too much to do to get mired in that quicksand. These are grave criminal charges, and since international crimes are involved as well as the U.S. War Crimes Act and the Anti-Torture Act, other nations whose laws include "universal jurisdiction" could prosecute.

But why would House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers Jr. and Intelligence Committee members Jerrold Nadler (my congressional representative) and Jan Schakowsky—among other signers—make such dramatic and historic charges of "war crimes" now, after most congressional Democrats have not shown the same interest? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for example, is not on the list of signers; she and Senate Democratic majority leader Harry Reid have never, in their opposition to the administration, come anywhere near these shocking accusations.

As of this writing, I've seen no alarm evident among Republicans, but if the story has legs, the response will begin with a derisive claim that this is a cheap, transparent, and bush-league trick to propel the election of Barack Obama.

But in the letter, these latter-day Thomas Paines (assuming you agree with them) assert that what impelled them to act immediately was that, "within the last month, additional information has surfaced that suggests the fact that not only did top Administration officials meet in the White House and approve of the use of enhanced techniques, including waterboarding against detainees, but that President Bush was aware of and approved of the meetings taking place. . . . This information indicates that the Bush administration may have systematically implemented, from the top down, detainee interrogation policies that constitute torture or otherwise violate the law." (Emphasis added.)

If Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, et al. are ever in the dock after such an investigation, I am sure that the prosecutors will show, among other thoroughly documented sources, the very specific names of the perpetrators and the dates of this series of crimes, as published in Torture Team: Rumsfeld's Memo and the Betrayal of American Values by Phillippe Sands (Palgrave MacMillan) and the irrefutable evidence found in University of Houston professor Jordan J. Paust's Beyond the Law: The Bush Administration's Unlawful Responses in the "War" on Terror (Cambridge University Press).

The latter is a book I wish every voter in November will have read, along with the same publisher's 1,249-page The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib, edited by Karen J. Greenberg and Joshua L. Dratel. Such books will help build the careers of future historians around the world.

I am further encouraged because chairman John Conyers, the June 8 Washington Post reported, "is looking into the role played by administration lawyers" in all of these crimes.

Conyers, calling treatment of detainees "a truly shameful episode," emphasizes that Bush's "enhanced" interrogation techniques were "used under cover of Justice Department legal opinions," and so "the need for outside counsel is obvious."

And since the letter from the 56 House Democrats is going to Attorney General Michael Mukasey—who claims that he cannot prosecute any perpetrator of these alleged war crimes because, by golly, they were authorized by Justice Department legal opinions—these House patriots are saying that Mukasey must appoint a special counsel rather than handle the investigation himself.

To give you a snapshot of Michael Mukasey's dedication to the rule of law and its essential requirement of fairness and impartiality in all trials, Bush's attorney general recently told an annual conference of Washington federal judges that trials of suspected terrorists by military commissions at Guantánamo will be "in the best traditions of the American legal system" (New York Sun, June 5). On June 12, the Supreme Court, declaring the commissions unconstitutional, exposed Mukasey's constitutional ignorance.

The administration lawyers, whom Conyers is also going after, designed those Guantánamo military commissions after advising Bush that the prisoners were not entitled to the protections of habeas corpus and the Geneva Conventions—and didn't have to be tried in our federal courts.

In Beyond the Law, Paust says of these lawyers (most of them graduates of our premier law schools): "Not since the Nazi era have so many lawyers been so clearly involved in international crimes concerning the treatment and interrogation of persons detained during war. . . . Such a direct role in a process of denial of protections under the laws of war [and our Constitution] is far more serious than the loss of honor and integrity to [presidential] power. It can form the basis for a lawyer's civil and criminal responsibility. . . .

"[These were lawyers] . . . directly advising how to deny protections in the future (denials of such protections are violations of the laws of war and war crimes)." And dig this: The administration lawyers advised the president how to take "actions that allegedly would avoid the restraints of various criminal statutes and their reach to the President and others with respect to future conduct," and especially with respect to the planned "coercive" interrogation tactics authorized by George W. Bush. (Emphasis added).

Some of these lawyers have gone on to prominent government positions—like Dick Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington.
 
e2eiv.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom