Key Senate Dems Suddenly Backtracking On Torture Policy

Time constraints prevented me yesterday from writing about Dianne Feinstein's comments concerning torture in yesterday's New York Times, in which the California Senator -- who will replace Jay Rockefeller as Chairperson of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- rather clearly backtracked on what had been her repeated, unequivocal insistence throughout the year that the CIA should be required to comply with the Army Field Manual when interrogating detainees. But Time's Michael Scherer picked up on the same backtracking and did a very good job of highlighting what appears to be Feinstein's (as well as Ron Wyden's) conspicuous, and rather disturbing, reversals.

But it's actually somewhat worse even than Scherer suggests. According to Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane, who wrote the article, Feinstein and Wyden are just two of the "senior Democratic lawmakers" who have "seemed reluctant in recent interviews to commit the new administration to following the Army Field Manual in all cases" -- despite the fact that both Feinstein and Wyden said throughout the year that they emphatically favored such a measure and even co-sponsored legislation requiring it.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[research]

See What a real interrogator says:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/09/interrogator-on-idaily-sh_n_149569.html?page=2&show_comment_id=18763258#comment_18763258

Torture Creates more terrorism, not information.

talk and hearts and minds wins allies, gets information to stop attacks.

[peaceandfreedom]

The only answer is Peace!

[Michale32086]

As soon as you get the terrorists to agree to that, I'll stand behind you 1000%...

Let me know when that happens..

Michale.....

[research]

In the mean time you will promote torture and dramatically increase the number of fanatical enemies we have.

In war, we can make a choice to be moral.

We can win Hearts and Minds.

Your way is endless escalating insane violence.

[Michale32086]

@research

}}}
Mich, we have already established that you don;t follow links. I have other stuff to do, than repeatedly put up links for now reasons.

Real interrogators who have published agree with me not you.

You can google it yourself.
{{{

TRANSLATION: Like the posters before who have made outrageous claims and then got caught, I also have been caught in a lie. So I am going to fall back on that old lame tactic of telling you to look it up yourself, knowing full well that there is no evidence out there to support ANY of my claims..

Michale.....

[research]

Mich,

I guess you have found a new peace with your horrific promotion of Torture.

You never go to links. I have provided them.

Just off the top of my mind, there's the interrogator who just came out with his book. There's the Nuremberg trials. Common knowledge.

You want to authorize an evil, counter productive, hate generating, enemy generating practice into Interrogations.

Did you friends assure you that "you weren't a bad man" so torture must be OK?

Torture IS Terrorism.

Torture's only accomplishment is to generate Fanatical enemies.

[Michale32086]

@sticksnstones

}}}}
I have stayed out of this debate for the very reasons you have so eloquently and reasonably submitted. After all, we are dealing with a completely anonymous entity here which reveals in its postings only comments which promote adversity, and by responding to them, serve only to encourage more of the same. In short, don't feed it.
{{{{

And, like JohnNCensorati, that is EXACTLY what you are doing with comments like these.

So, like I asked before.

If your advice is such good advice, why can't you yourself follow it???

Michale......

[research]

sick sick sick.

you know better and you stick to the defense of torture.

You and your ilk are creating more terrorist, more enemies of the USA.

So that you can satisfy you blood lust for revenge.

[research]

Still? You are creating more terrorist than you will ever capture or kill.

You have yet to answer:

How many innocents the USA has tortured BECOME terrorists?

Can't you give it up?

Torture is WRONG!

[Michale32086]

How many times do you have to be told?

Of course torture is wrong...

But sometimes it is necessary...

You seem to care more about the comfort and rights of terrorists, rather than the lives of the innocent victims that they brutally murder.

Why is that???

}}}
How many innocents the USA has tortured BECOME terrorists?
{{{

You tell me.. And provide evidence to back up your claims..

Michale......

[Michale32086]

CONT

{{{{{
What you don't 'get" is that the majority of us support the prosecution and punishment of those who commit crimes against our Nation!
{{{{{

Really?? I see no evidence that supports that assertion...

}}}}}
The difference between us and you, is that we want their prosecution done MORALLY AND ETHICALLY LEGAL! We want the information obtained from them to be of REASONABLE VALUE and to provide ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE.
}}}}}}

No, the difference between us is you are more concerned about your principles than you are about someone else's life...

How selfish is that??

Michale.....

[research]

No Mich, you are concerned with revenge and hate.

Your tortured path results in more violence.

[Michale32086]

CONT

}}}}}
Put simply, it was a discussion of whether the use of torture was Right or Wrong.

You have repeatedly argued that its use was "Right".
{{{{{

Again, you are not being accurate here.

I have ALWAYS maintained that torture is wrong. I simply have stated that sometimes, torture is necessary and sometimes it is effective.

And I have provided evidence to support such assertions. Unlike those who made the outrageous afore-mentioned claims and then ran home to mommy when they were asked to provide evidence..

}}}}}
The United States is a Nation of LAWS. The law will decide against your position, and I believe you already know that. You ARE on the losing side in this debate.
{{{{{

Time will tell.. But at least you concede that the question hasn't been settled yet..

}}}}
Your attempt to characterize those who disagree, as supportive of "terrorists" (which you've not provided a proper definition of),
{{{{

Could have sworn I have.. Anyways, here it is:

Terrorism is defined as ongoing and systematic attacks of violence specifically targeted against innocent civilian persons or property for the purpose of furthering a political, economical or ideological agenda.

}}}}
or more concerned with their "comfort" and "rights" than those they would attack, is ignorant, and insulting.
{{{{

I call 'em as I see 'em..

CONT

[research]

innocents, like most of the Gitmo folks.

So torturing them IS terrorism.

[Michale32086]

@SirReal1

}}}}}
Micale,

Last note, and then I am through with you.
{{{{{{

I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said THAT... :D

}}}}}
The basis of our debate, as it relates to Senator Feinstein's position cited in the article, has consistently been whether "torture" was "necessary, proper, and legal".
{{{{{

That is incorrect. My original position, which has stayed completely consistent throughout this discussion was that torture is wrong, it is evil and it is immoral. But sometimes it is necessary...

THAT has been the point of contention throughout this discussion..

Then others tried to throw up smoke screens by making completely ludicrous claims like Americans have lost their Habeas Corpus rights and that terrorists are covered under the Geneva Conventions.

Both claims have been proved false..

CONT

[research]

Yet you cannot list ONE SINGLE CASE WERE Torture PROVIDE ADVANCE INFORMATION TO STOP A TERRORIST EVENT.

not one.

[Michale32086]

@research

}}}}}
Fantasy from "24" that's all it is. In real life, you almost never have such clarity.
{{{{{

I would put more stock in your claims if I didn't know that they were borne of ignorance and wishful thinking..

}}}}}
At least you are conditioning you support for torture more than before.
{{{{{

Actually, my stance has been consistent throughout.

}}}}
Is a 1% chance that some person has information enough?
{{{{

I would hesitate to quantify it in that manner, as each situation is unique and such a serious decision requires someone to consider many different aspects..

But suffice it to say that, in my particular case and knowing that I would have to live with the results, ALL the results, I would have to be pretty damn sure.. But as I said, that is just me...

}}}}}
Nor is it likely that any REAL terrorist will say give you the code to shut off a bomb. Plenty of them are willing to give their lives, so they will give you a false code and boom.
{{{{{

Again, I would put more stock in your opinions if they had any sort of relevant experience to back them up.

}}}}}
From what real interrogators have reported, you are still more likely to get that code with pursuasive talk than torture.
{{{{{

You have cited one... Do you have any others???

Michale.....

[research]

Mich, we have already established that you don;t follow links. I have other stuff to do, than repeatedly put up links for now reasons.

Real interrogators who have published agree with me not you.

You can google it yourself.

[SirReal1]

Micale,

Last note, and then I am through with you.

The basis of our debate, as it relates to Senator Feinstein's position cited in the article, has consistently been whether "torture" was "necessary, proper, and legal".

You have attempted to defend your position by arguing about Habeas writs and GC intent. Classic maneuvering of a person who knows they are wrong, and definitively illogical.

Put simply, it was a discussion of whether the use of torture was Right or Wrong.

You have repeatedly argued that its use was "Right".

The United States is a Nation of LAWS. The law will decide against your position, and I believe you already know that. You ARE on the losing side in this debate.

Your attempt to characterize those who disagree, as supportive of "terrorists" (which you've not provided a proper definition of), or more concerned with their "comfort" and "rights" than those they would attack, is ignorant, and insulting.

What you don't 'get" is that the majority of us support the prosecution and punishment of those who commit crimes against our Nation! The difference between us and you, is that we want their prosecution done MORALLY AND ETHICALLY LEGAL! We want the information obtained from them to be of REASONABLE VALUE and to provide ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE.

That you align yourself against these intentions, HAS NOT given you the appearance of being right on this basic issue.

[sticksnstones]

I have stayed out of this debate for the very reasons you have so eloquently and reasonably submitted. After all, we are dealing with a completely anonymous entity here which reveals in its postings only comments which promote adversity, and by responding to them, serve only to encourage more of the same. In short, don't feed it.

[Michale32086]

@research

}}}}
you wouldn't know a terrorist till you tortured them into confessing.
{{{{

Actually, you are quite wrong... AGAIN...

I have made it clear that I only would employ torture against a known and proven terrorist and only under the circumstances that there is imminent lost of life and that it is assured that said terrorist has information that would prevent said loss of life.

If any of the afore would be in doubt, then torture should not be employed..

That's been my position all along and it's a very reasonable and logical position, considering...

I have never, EVER, not once condoned the use of torture as a "fishing expedition" or for the purposes of determining whether a person is a terrorist..

These are the facts.

Michale....

[SirReal1]

"I have made it clear that I only would employ torture against a known and proven terrorist and only under the circumstances that there is imminent lost of life and that it is assured that said terrorist has information that would prevent said loss of life."

Michale32086-Posted 09:26 AM on 12/06/2008

"A terrorist is a rabid animal who should be put down at the earliest oppurtunity but not before ANY semblance of intel can be wringed from their psychotic and diseased brain, preferably in the most painful way possible."

Michale32086-Posted 04:16 PM on 12/05/2008

"That's been my position all along and it's a very reasonable and logical position, considering.."

Michale32086-Posted 09:26 AM on 12/06/2008

These are the facts.

I guess you are right. You certainly SOUND reasonable!

[Michale32086]

Yes, I am reasonable.. At least reasonable for a person who has seen the results of terrorism first hand.

I am glad we agree.... Common ground is a wonderful thing....

Michale.....

[research]

Fantasy from "24" that's all it is. In real life, you almost never have such clarity.

At least you are conditioning you support for torture more than before.

Is a 1% chance that some person has information enough?

Nor is it likely that any REAL terrorist will say give you the code to shut off a bomb. Plenty of them are willing to give their lives, so they will give you a false code and boom.

From what real interrogators have reported, you are still more likely to get that code with pursuasive talk than torture.

It is and always has been "hearts and minds"

[Michale32086]

@ajax2

What is your point???

Everything you note is pre-SCOTUS rulings....

You simply re-enforce my point about how the SCOTUS rulings have re-affirmed that Americans have not lost their Habeas Corpus rights..

Do you have ANY evidence to show that, at this point in time, Americans do not have Habeas Corpus rights??

No you do not..

I am also constrained to point out that, during WWII, FDR (a democrat I might add) incarcerated American citizens without cause, whose sole "crime" was their ancestry..

So, again, I have to ask you.

What is your point??

Michale.....

[SirReal1]

Now that is a great defense! Over 50 years ago a President utilized the same maneuver (which the courts ruled against) as "W" tried. Therefore...what exactly?

Your assertion is "in essence" correct. There is no loss of Habeas writ "at this point in time", but it is hardly the "stretch" you are trying to portray it as, to assert that this administration, and the agents charged with prosecuting the administrations intent, were complicit in an attempt to deprive individuals of this basic right.

Nor is it a stretch to assert that this effort is "ongoing".

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/washington/07gitmo.html?ref=us
Published: November 6, 2008

"After years of legal clashes over whether detainees have the right to contest their detention in court, a federal judge on Thursday opened the first hearing into the government"s justification for holding suspects at the naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba."

"Their case was the first to reach a factual hearing since the Supreme Court ruled in June that detainees at Guantánamo are entitled to seek their freedom through federal habeas corpus cases."

The point of the original argument you engaged in, was to demonstrate how THIS ADMINISTRATION (and agents of it), has consistently attempted to deprive individuals of their BASIC RIGHTS! Your contention that after 6 years of ILLEGAL IMPRISONMENT, the courts are NOW restoring those rights, as PROOF of the legality and/or RIGHTEOUSNESS of this administrations actions is absurd!

[SirReal1]

The contention of those whose opinions you have sought to deride, is that this administration has consistently engaged in illegal and improper actions against those they have "labeled" TERRORISTS. The premise being that these activities, INCLUDING TORTURE, will be ultimately struck down in the courts, and that PROPER ACTIONS will be restored.

Your contention has consistently been that "Torture" was, and is, a viable means of gathering Intel, and therefore should be continued as a collection tool. Though you have backtracked to the extent that you have willingly admitted it is "wrong" in its basic tenant, you still advocate its "limited use" as necessary and proper.

It has been consistently pointed out (and you haven't effectively refuted) that information derived "under duress" is dubious at best, and of little Intel "value", you still voice support for its use.

Then you assert that your "position" is "very reasonable and logical"?

GetReal!

Class adjourned!

[peaceandfreedom]

The Beatles had it right all those years ago. So did those kids sticking flowers into the barrels of rifles. The hippies, they were right. Martin Luther King, he was right. The Maharishi, Ghandi, and the Amish were all right.

All we need is Love!

[Michale32086]

So, if Nicholas Berg had just sang the Beatles to his captors, they wouldn't have slit his throat???

Is that what you are truly saying???

What about Daniel Pearl?? All he had to do was belt out a chorus of IMAGINE and his wife would still have a husband and his kids would still have a father??

Is THAT what you are really saying???

Michale.....

[research]

Could you LOVE someone you are torturing?

[Michale32086]

@SirReal1

You obviously did not read Article 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, did you?

If you had, you would have learned the answer to your questions.

As for Habeas Corpus rights.. Please point out to me ANY evidence that shows that Americans have lost their Habeas Corpus rights. You can't because none exists.. Another poster tried that same lie and he got caught in the lie...

You aren't very good at this, are you???

Michale.....

[ajax2]

Padilla was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President Bush designated him an illegal enemy combatant and transferred him to a military prison, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts. Padilla was held for three-and-a-half years as an "enemy combatant" after his arrest in 2002

[ajax2]

"John Walker Lindh another American was often kept blindfolded, naked, and bound to a stretcher with duct tape¦ For days, Lindh was ¦ left cold and sleep-deprived in a pitch-dark steel shipping container. The physician described Lindh as "disoriented" and "suffering lack of nourishment", adding that "suicide is a concern."¦

Nonetheless, Lindh was interrogated repeatedly¦ When noting the right to counsel, the agent acknowledged, he ad-libbed, "Of course, there are no lawyers here"¦

[SirReal1]

You are not serious, are you?

I already pointed out the limited scope of the SCOTUS rulings.

I would also point out that your very argument proves my point. The fact that these two had to appeal to the SCOTUS is a direct indication that the right of Habeas Corpus is no longer guaranteed.

But that was never my argument you ign0r@nt a$$.

The GC protections, and the Habeas Corpus right, were put in place to INSURE that WE, the U.S. of A., never strayed from our basic ideals.

By the use of torture, we have made a major detour from the path the Founding Fathers set for our once great nation.

Try reading that "god-d@mned piece of paper" that they wrote. It is pretty clear in its intent.

[Michale32086]

I see.. So your argument is that a SCOTUS ruling is limited??

And you call ME ignorant??

Do YOU have ANY evidence to support your assertion that American citizens have lost their Habeas Corpus rights??

No, you do not...

Yet, I have shown evidence to support my assertion.

As I said, you are not very good at this..

Michale.....

[Rule Of Law]

Who would Jesus torture?

[Michale32086]

Probably the guy who gave you the ludicrous and bogus information that there was a new and improved MCA bill....

Michale......

[Michale32086]

@SirReal1

}}}}
I can reasonably assure you there is FAR more of a difference between you and I, than you describe in your post.
{{{{

Probably not... With a few exceptions (4 to be exact) I am probably more liberal than you are..

But counter terrorism is one issue that I truly get passionate about.. Like I said before, if you had walked in my shoes, you would feel the same.

Michale.....

[research]

Is that why you advocate torture, to create more terrorists to protect your job in counter terror?

[Michale32086]

I don't advocate torture... Just as I don't advocate cops having to use their guns to protect innocent lives..

I simply maintain that torture CAN save lives, HAS saved lives and, as such should not be automatically discarded..

As I mentioned before, my main concern is that innocent lives be saved.. Your main concern seems to be protecting the comfort of terrorists..

I am quite comfortable in my position...

Michale.....

[SirReal1]

No, seriously, you need to get over yourself.

You don't advocate torture?

"A terrorist is a rabid animal who should be put down at the earliest oppurtunity but not before ANY semblance of intel can be wringed from their psychotic and diseased brain, preferably in the most painful way possible."

You wish to claim that you are "liberal". I'm not even sure what to make of that. Who cares? I never claimed to be "liberal", and I would be more than willing to discuss this, civilly, if you were RATIONAL!

As an argument, you actually offer "Go ask the parents of Nicholas Berg if a terrorist is a human being. Go ask the wife and children of Daniel Pearl if a terrorist is a human being..."?

Should we ask those who lost a loved one to some form of gun violence if they think we need more gun control laws? Should we ask partners of spouses who recently cheated on them if the Laws against adultery need to be enforced?

It's the same rationale that fuels anti-smoking bans, and lawsuits for hot coffee spilled in old ladies laps! These things SHOULD NOT be decided by people in the midst of emotional turmoil or cognitive dissonance. It makes no sense what-so-ever to ask the people who are most reactionary whether something is a good idea or not.

That apparently includes you, you've obviously gotten too close to this issue.

[Michale32086]

Yes, I have gotten very close to the issue..

Close enough to see the reality of it.

You, on the other hand, only know the theory of the issue. You think that it's oh so exciting and oh so glamorous. You think that terrorism is like being a freedom fighter, fighting the good fight...

You could not possibly be more wrong...

A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. There is nothing good or noble in what they do...

If you actually lived in the REAL world, you would understand that...

But you don't... You live in a fantasy world where all you need is a kind word and that makes everything all better..

Well people like me do not have the luxury of living in your world. They are too busy doing violence on your behalf so you can have the freedom to turn around and spit on them...

Michale.....