Should the CIA be exempt from US laws prohibiting the use of torture?

[rasmack 0]

Quote

Quote

Supporting a ban which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands is as despicable as perpetrating the act itself.

So you're opposed to Bush's restrictions on Stem Cell Research?

Blatantly off-topic but very very funny

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So you're opposed to Bush's restrictions on Stem Cell Research?

Those restriction allowing private companies to research? Or just the public funding to bloated medical companies to the same research being cut?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mr2mk1g 10]

Remember the proposed law is that no US serviceman can torture a detainee. That’s not been proposed by the White House and in itself probably won’t help deter terrorists much. The action which sparked my poll is Cheney has demanded that the CIA be exempt from this new law.

If the law does not change anything why does Cheney need the CIA to be exempt? If the exemption would not change anything then is the US as a whole aware that the CIA is currently permitted to torture detainees?

I agree however that there is also the possibility that the Cheney proposed this exemption to win votes without truly expecting it to be allowed by the House.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Remember the proposed law is that no US serviceman can torture a detainee. That’s not been proposed by the White House and in itself probably won’t help deter terrorists much. The action which sparked my poll is Cheney has demanded that the CIA be exempt from this new law.

If the law does not change anything why does Cheney need the CIA to be exempt? If the exemption would not change anything then is the US as a whole aware that the CIA is currently permitted to torture detainees?

I agree however that there is also the possibility that the Cheney proposed this exemption to win votes without truly expecting it to be allowed by the House.

confused here:

1 - The CIA isn't soldiers, so what would be exempted from the proposed law? (the 'proposed law' as you state it also sounds like a piece of PR fluff)

2 - I don't believe the CIA is "permitted" to torture, I'm sure in reality, all the major countries have some element of hidden torture (likely instigated by very motivated and misguided indivduals who think they are doing the right thing. And likely -conveniently ignored- when found out - in some cases. I wouldn't even say restrict it to the CIA. This won't be changed, not in the US, or anywhere else.

3 - I'd be surprised to see Cheney trying to win votes. His only next option is a national election (I doubt he'd get a nomination - I hope not, he's old and unhealthy, and even if he doesn't deserve it, some of the baggage would just make this forum an entire boredomfest if he runs) and to open up on the side of giving the impression of allowing torture is to open up on the wrong side of the debate. That might be different for regional or local demographics. I could see this being opened up for vote taking at the congress level or lower. Maybe it was thrown out there for the sake of these other guys. Or maybe even as a CYA in the event something happens in the future (we could have found out about that attack on 11/9, but we weren't allowed to do "everything we could" because congress shot down our reasonable proposals.....)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Channman 2]

>Would that include jailing and torturing "suspects" that are white Americans?

Yes, but jailing them cost money. When you get the information, take em out to Sea and drop them over board with a weight tied to the feet. We don't want to leave any evidence around so make sure no ones watching.

[ReBirth 0]

Lovely....I suspect YOU. Ok?

Funny thing is I seem to notice that most of those supporting this exemption for torture for the CIA, are the same people who argued that we had to get rid of SH because he was torturing his people. Hypocrisy at its finest.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Supporting a ban which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands is as despicable as perpetrating the act itself.

So you're opposed to Bush's restrictions on Stem Cell Research?

Yep.

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Supporting a ban which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands is as despicable as perpetrating the act itself.

So you're opposed to Bush's restrictions on Stem Cell Research?

Yep.

What if we find out we need to abort fetuses to get the necessary stem cells?

[mr2mk1g 10]

(In reference to your numbered paragraphs)

1) I state on the first page I don't know the actual wording of the proposed law – just what is reported in the media. It evidently applies to the CIA or the White House wouldn't be trying to exempt them from it.

2) If they're not permitted to torture currently then this exemption either has no effect as other laws would still cover the CIA anyway (so why ask for the exemption other than for political gain or shear stupidity) or (depending on what the actual wording of this legislation is) it could change things drastically and mean the CIA could pick you up and torture you if they wished without breaking any laws.

3) I realize this - I meant that I agreed with you - the attempt to exempt the CIA (which was merely voiced by Cheney) could be an attempt to win votes ffor the Republican Party.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Lovely....I suspect YOU. Ok?

Funny thing is I seem to notice that most of those supporting this exemption for torture for the CIA, are the same people who argued that we had to get rid of SH because he was torturing his people. Hypocrisy at its finest.

I'm not supporting torture. I just don't see a need for a law that say they can't.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Would that include jailing and torturing "suspects" that are white Americans?"

Isn't the CIA primarily interested in foreign intel gathering?

If you were a nice American citizen wouldn't the FBI be torturing/dumping you at sea etc, you in this scenario?

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

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Supporting a ban which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands is as despicable as perpetrating the act itself.

So you're opposed to Bush's restrictions on Stem Cell Research?

Yep.

What if we find out we need to abort fetuses to get the necessary stem cells?

We don't and if we did, I would be against aborting fetuses for that purpose.
We are getting a little off track here, don't you think?

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

I'm not supporting torture. I just don't see a need for a law that say they can't.

No one proposed a law to say that the CIA can't torture. Cheney is proposing an amendment that exempts the CIA from a law that bans torture.

So regardless of whether you agree with the law restricting torture, do you agree that the CIA should have a different standard?

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Should the CIA be exempt from US laws prohibiting the use of torture?

No unless we are going to have no problem with our people civilians and military getting tortured. We should practice what we preach.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[ReBirth 0]

You made a blanket statement about opposing any ban that costs lives. I just wanted to see if you really meant it. You apparently didn't. You only oppose banning the torture of foreign suspects. It's reasonable to conclude that you therefore condone torture. If you do, don't sugar coat it. Own up to it.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm not supporting torture. I just don't see a need for a law that say they can't.

No one proposed a law to say that the CIA can't torture. Cheney is proposing an amendment that exempts the CIA from a law that bans torture.

So regardless of whether you agree with the law restricting torture, do you agree that the CIA should have a different standard?

Yes I do. Do you believe the police should be bound by the speed limit while chasing a murder suspect?

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

Yes I do. Do you believe the police should be bound by the speed limit while chasing a murder suspect?

No, and the military and CIA should have tools at their disposal that the ordinary citizent does not posess PROVIDED there is oversite (e.g. no secret prisons) and I don't include acts condemned the world over especially BY US as being violations of basic human rights to be among those tools.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

(3) I realize this - I meant that I agreed with you - the attempt to exempt the CIA (which was merely voiced by Cheney) could be an attempt to win votes for the Republican Party.

Democrats also can curry votes by grandstanding on one side or the other of this dog and pony show. It seems to favor incumbants over replacements much more than Republicans over Democrats. It's likely more of a means to try to solidify the status quo rather than tip the scales further right in the legislature.

If we want to explore the 'theory' of Congress doing things just for show........

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

No, and the military and CIA should have tools at their disposal that the ordinary citizent does not posess PROVIDED there is oversite (e.g. deleted, it detracts) and I don't include acts condemned the world over especially BY US as being violations of basic human rights to be among those tools.

This is one of the best posts of the thread. It clearly notes there is a difference between:

-99% of our laws which are rather arbitrary and relate to subjective interaction amongst people and can be flexed for the overall good and the;
-few laws that relate to basic human rights that can't be compromised in any way shape or form or biased between groups for any reason

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Democrats also can curry votes by grandstanding

Oh I agree - I was merely talking about this proposed exemption. It was proposed by a Republican so is not likely to exist in order to curry votes for Democrats. The original amendment which this exemption we're discussing is attached to may well have been proposed to curry votes for the proposer or party of the proposer - whoever that was.

Same thing happens over here and I'm sure many other places.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

You made a blanket statement about opposing any ban that costs lives. I just wanted to see if you really meant it. You apparently didn't. You only oppose banning the torture of foreign suspects. It's reasonable to conclude that you therefore condone torture. If you do, don't sugar coat it. Own up to it.

I said that I thought the greatest value in exempting the CIA from a law banning torture is the pschological advantage. Nowhere did I ever say I supported physical torture. In fact, I said exactly the opposite.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

No one proposed a law to say that the CIA can't torture. Cheney is proposing an amendment that exempts the CIA from a law that bans torture.

What?

This whole brew ha ha is from just that. McCain proposed a bill against torture of US held prisoners (it also passed in the Senate by the way). THAT prompted Cheney to lobby for the exemption.

But what I find funny, is the threat of veto. Bush has not vetoed a bill in FIVE YEARS yet THIS is what he wants to start with? A ban on torture?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[ReBirth 0]

I'd agree with you except that apparently some people DO want to compromise laws regarding basic human rights and allow torture.

All laws are the creation of man and are therefore all subjective.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It was proposed by a Republican so is not likely to exist in order to curry votes for Democrats.

I believe any non-value added proposal is to curry votes for "Incumbants". Once they get in power, they all want to keep it. I think most of the conflict in Washington is for show, polarize the populace, and it's easier to create strategy to pull in votes to stay in office for as long as you can.

This one is great as it doesn't involve redistributing funds to 'buy' votes like the more hotly contested ones. It will purely curry emotional votes. And all they have to do is bluster and argue and not change a thing. We see more of these as the fiscal positions of the parties converge and they try to polarize completely on social issues. it's the path of least resistance.

The little conflict that is real is likely about each person increasing their little bit of power over the others. But they've pretty well polarized to the 50/50 point, so that isn't changing for some time.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I'd agree with you except that apparently some people DO want to compromise laws regarding basic human rights and allow torture.

nuts - that isn't a change from status quo at all

Subjectivity of law - that bit is just philosophical self stroking, you're better than that

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants