News Bush's Support of Torture: Global Impact and Un-American Reputation

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh please, we have more people standing in line at McDonalds than both of your country's populations combined. This is a huge place with political views from every culture found on the planet.

 

[Smurf]

Oh I'm sure they exist... just not in any significant quantities.

I'm not saying it's unique to the USA, although I would suggest that the USA is among the worst. Canada, especially the praries are just as bad as many parts of the states. Getting worse too.

 

[loseyourname]

Isn't that the worst thing about the states? They go around bashing Liberals but the truth is they havn't had anyone in office even close to being liberal in over a century.

You act as if there exists some absolute standard as to what constitutes a "liberal." The sprectrum is different for each country. Are you really that dense about the usage of language, or do you honestly think that whether or not somone is liberal is simply a matter of plugging their beliefs into an equation, and no American president in over a century has come up with the answer that falls into the set marked "liberal?"

 

[Smurf]

You act as if there exists some absolute standard as to what constitutes a "liberal." The sprectrum is different for each country. Are you really that dense about the usage of language, or do you honestly think that whether or not somone is liberal is simply a matter of plugging their beliefs into an equation, and no American president in over a century has come up with the answer that falls into the set marked "liberal?"

I was merely pointing out that, on a non-US centered scale, no American president could ever be considered liberal or left-wing.

Edit: Isn't there an absolute standard of "Liberal"? Say... the http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Liberalism" maybe?
Regardless, my post was more about the left-right spectrum than about liberalism since I consider ideologies to be more On or Off. You either are a liberal, or you arn't. There's no "is more/less liberal than.."

 

[loseyourname]

Regardless, my post was more about the left-right spectrum than about liberalism since I consider ideologies to be more On or Off. You either are a liberal, or you arn't. There's no "is more/less liberal than.."

You should be smart enough to know that that isn't the way the term is used in contemporary politics. If we went by the definition of classical liberalism, then Jefferson is the most liberal president we've ever had. In the US, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are used to denote people who are either left-leaning or right-leaning, with respect to what constitutes the center for the country, with "center" simply being the average political stance. It is something that changes with time, and it is also something that is a nation-specific definition.

 

[Smurf]

You should be smart enough to know that that isn't the way the term is used in contemporary politics. If we went by the definition of classical liberalism, then Jefferson is the most liberal president we've ever had. In the US, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are used to denote people who are either left-leaning or right-leaning, with respect to what constitutes the center for the country, with "center" simply being the average political stance. It is something that changes with time, and it is also something that is a nation-specific definition.

Yes. I am aware. I mean that, on a global scale, the US is among the most right-leaning nations in the world - passed mostly (or maybe exclusively) by dictatorships and developing nations.

I could easily say the reverse about Scandinavia... (except the "passed by dictatorships" part)

 

[ron damon]

Yes. I am aware. I mean that, on a global scale, the US is among the most right-leaning nations in the world - passed mostly (or maybe exclusively) by dictatorships and developing nations.

I could easily say the reverse about Scandinavia... (except the "passed by dictatorships" part)

Actually, America is the most liberal nation that has ever existed, the only country founded on the principles of individual liberty and the free pursuit of happiness. If you want to explore its intellectual roots, go back and read Locke, Hume, and Smith.

Its modern alternative, the Left, is a situation in which the State supersedes the individual and makes choices pursuant to his/her happiness (whether he/she likes it or not). In the conceptual spectrum, it points to the east/past. A dictatorship of any sort thus is infinitely more closely related to it, where a few make moral and subjective decisions that forcefully bind the rest, than to the US, where the power of the government to coerce private individuals is much lower. A measure of this is the share of the country's resources that the government appropriates.

Government expenditures as a share of GDP:

Canada 40.1%
Germany 49.4%
France 54.4%
Italy 48.5%
Sweden 59%
United States 35.9%

But then no argument would convince a Leftist, since his/her view of freedom is the ability to impose subjective judgements on others through government coercion.

 

[Anttech]

I could easily say the reverse about Scandinavia

And if you did you would be wrong :-)

Dont let the high taxes fool you, Denmark has a Center right coliltion party,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1032760.stm

Norways center left party only just recently took power back from the center right goverment

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1023276.stm

Anyway :-)

 

[Anttech]

But then no argument would convince a Leftist, since his/her view of freedom is the ability to impose subjective judgements on others through government coercion.

Not true... Again you seem to think that if you believe in social justice, rather than "corporate Justice" then you are a communist..

 

[loseyourname]

Not true... Again you seem to think that if you believe in social justice, rather than "corporate Justice" then you are a communist..

No, but if you believe that social justice must be imposed on a people by its government, giving the people themselves no choice in this matter, then you are at odds with the classical liberal position that men should be free to choose their own lives and do what they please with their property.

That isn't to say that your position is wrong (I am assuming that you do believe social justice should be imposed by the government), but unless every single person in a given society is freely willing to give up what they own to create social justice, then you must use coercive tactics, ultimately backed by the threat of force, to implement that justice.

 

[Anttech]

That isn't to say that your position is wrong (I am assuming that you do believe social justice should be imposed by the government

Actually I believe that the Legal system should "impose" this, not the "goverment" The two are not the same...

Social Justist, like human rights, fair and free trade.. etc etc, are not "imposed" on people per say, they are typically a legislative framework that Business and Goverment have to abidy by, and thus it "protects" people...

 

[Anttech]

Actually, America is the most liberal nation that has ever existed, the only country founded on the principles of individual liberty and the free pursuit of happiness.

This is very narror minded statement, how much reasearch have you done to come to this conclusion? America is no more "free" than any country in the EU... And some people might argue you are less free, I can't think of any other country in the EU that has something like Gutanamo bay, or a clause that allows people to be detained indefinetly without a hearing or trial... It could be interpreted as, you are free as long as you think the correct way!

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I can't think of any other country in the EU that has... a clause that allows people to be detained indefinetly without a hearing or trial.

I can. The UK. But only if you're forrun-lookin. That's not the law; that's just the practise. You can also execute forrun-lookin people without even any motive or extenuating circumstances to vaguely warrant it. The UK is also not averse to renditioning prisoners to countries where torture is allowed to extract information, or keep them out of the way, just like (though not to the extent of) the US. In fact, one of those countries is... the US!

51st state indeed.

 

[Anttech]

I can. The UK. But only if you're forrun-lookin. That's not the law; that's just the practise. You can also execute forrun-lookin people without even any motive or extenuating circumstances to vaguely warrant it. The UK is also not averse to renditioning prisoners to countries where torture is allowed to extract information, or keep them out of the way, just like (though not to the extent of) the US. In fact, one of those countries is... the US!

Total nonsence...

The Goverment of the UK is Trying to pass legislations to hold people without trail for 3 months (not indefinetly), which I doubt will get through!

It however Cannot currently deport people back to countries that have bad human rights records! This is becuase of EU Human Rights Law that the UK signed...

You can also execute forrun-lookin people without even any motive or extenuating circumstances to vaguely warrant it.

yes it looks like it, since the Brazilian got shot but legally they cannot do such things

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

The Goverment of the UK is Trying to pass legislations to hold people without trail for 3 months (not indefinetly), which I doubt will get through!

The 2001 Anti-Terrorist act allowed the UK to, among other things, detain foreign nationals on suspicion of terrorist acts or plans without charge indefinitely, and this act has been called upon a number of times. Yes, this is against the European Convention on Human Rights. So how did Blair get around that? He... uh... opted the UK out of that part (article 5). Did you know any of this? The legislation to which you refer is not what I could possibly have been talking about, since it has not been implemented yet.

It however Cannot currently deport people back to countries that have bad human rights records! This is becuase of EU Human Rights Law that the UK signed...

... and subsequently forgot about. There's two separate issues here:
1. deporting someone back to their country of origin where they may be persecuted;
2. renditioning suspects to ANY country, not necessarily their country of origin, for the purposes of interrogation in a way not legally feasible in the UK.

Issue one is generally not a terrorism issue, but an illegal immigration issue. The 1971 Immigration Act allows illegal immigrants to be deported back to their country and to be detained up until their deportation. The Human Rights Act does indeed prohibit a country in the EU from knowingly deporting someone to a country where they will be persecuted. These two acts often come into conflict, and only recently the government were found yet again guilty of erring on the side of recklessness: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4303892.stm.

The second issue is a global scandal. Renditioning is much more quickly associated with the US, but there is evidence that the UK have facilitated this evil practise. About a year ago The New Statesman published an interview with a Briton who was held, then released, on suspicion of terrorist affiliation, and then was arrested on the Afghanistan (I think) border by American authorities, reason unknown. From there he was deported to one of the US' favoured places of torture, I think t=his time it was Syria. He was eventually "rescued" by... ahem... the British who were very nice about the whole thing and probably gave him a cup of tea, but not the reason why the Americans would have thought to have arrested him. Now, I can't cite this article since it was in a magazine, but here's some related stuff, just so you know I'm not making this up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/4246089.stm
http://www.ihrc.org.uk/show.php?id=1309
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4088746.stm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0210-11.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1270541,00.html

yes it looks like it, since the Brazilian got shot but legally they cannot do such things

The home office and the met beg to differ. They maintain it IS legal.

 

[Anttech]

UK Legislation

After much debate, the UK Parliament passed the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act in December 2001.

The Act was intended to make it easier for law enforcement agencies to track terrorist funds and share information.

Most controversially, the Act grants the home secretary the power to detain suspected international terrorists without trial if deportation is not possible because it would endanger the suspects’ lives.

Since this provision violates Article 5 of the Human Rights Act, the home secretary had to assert that the UK is in a 'state of public emergency.' Article 5 guarantees the right to liberty and grants protection against detention without charge of trial.

In addition, communications companies will now have the power to retain information on calls and emails made by their customers, though they will not be able to retain their contents.

Liberty, a human rights group, legally challenged Britain's anti-terror laws in July 2002, claiming they breach human rights. Amnesty International has similarly asserted that the new laws breach fundamental human rights.

In total, 17 men have been arrested and held without trial in the UK under the new laws. Of these, 11 are still being detained.

Most are being held at Belmarsh Prison in London, which some human rights groups have termed “Britain’s Guantanamo Bay.”

Home Secretary David Blunkett has admitted that the situation is not ideal, but argues that it is necessary and “the best and most workable way to address the particular problems we face.” But in August, Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights called for an alternative to be found to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act’s internment powers, and said suspected terrorists should be charged and face trial rather than left in legal limbo.

However, just two detainees have so far successfully challenged their detention, with three Appeal Court judges deciding in August the government was legally entitled to hold 10 other men who appealed. Solicitors are currently attempting to overturn this decision in the House Of Lords.

I stand corrected... I was aware of this, but for some reason I was under the impression that people had to be "tried"

 

[loseyourname]

Actually I believe that the Legal system should "impose" this, not the "goverment" The two are not the same...

What country has a judiciary that is not part of the government?

Social Justist, like human rights, fair and free trade.. etc etc, are not "imposed" on people per say, they are typically a legislative framework that Business and Goverment have to abidy by, and thus it "protects" people...

"Legislative framework" presumably means laws. Laws are ruled that are imposed on a group of people by the government. They are enforced using the threat of violent action if one does not comply. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but it does run contrary to libertarianism. You're just mincing words here to avoid using words like "coerce" and "impose," but that is what the government is doing. It is the only thing that a government can do. The classical liberal position (take Jefferson, for instance) is that the government should do this as little as is possible. For the most part, it should just get out of the way. The modern-day liberal position is the opposite; it states that government should intervene in just about everything.

 

[Anttech]

The modern-day liberal position is the opposite; it states that government should intervene in just about everything.

In a two party system like yours maybe...

What country has a judiciary that is not part of the government?

Is your congress the goverment?

 

[pattylou]

I've only got a minute - and haven't read through the last 2 pages so please forgive me if I am re-stating something.

Back to the OP -

I finally google-news'd this item, and WOW!

What's brought out the threat of the presidential ax is recent legislation stating clearly that U.S. soldiers must not torture prisoners. The overwhelming (90-9) passage by the Senate of Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain's sponsored amendment says clearly that the "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of prisoners under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense was to be prohibited. The potential clash between the administration and Congress has received attention overseas - and was recently reported in the British paper, The Telegraph. According to the story, White House spokesman Scott McClellan warned that, "We have put out a Statement of Administration Policy saying that his advisers would recommend that he vetoes it if it contains such language [as has already been passed by the Senate]."

McClellan makes it sound like Bush will actually veto this thing. OMG.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=1257

 

[ron damon]

Social Justist, like human rights, fair and free trade.. etc etc, are not "imposed" on people per say, they are typically a legislative framework that Business and Goverment have to abidy by, and thus it "protects" people...

The very concept that government should be pursuing something as ethereal, vague, and ill-defined as "social justice" is anathema to the very principles of personal freedom (and responsibility) that the US stands for.

Of course Europe is nothing but a long history of such projects, from pogroms, to state religions, to socialism, but America was founded by men fleeing from a government that would trample them for the pursuit of a "higher good".

David Hume wrote (I'm paraphrasing) that when thinking about how government should be set up, one must always assume that it will be run by scoundrels, and thus it should be given the less possible authority to interfere with individual liberties.

In Europe you operate basically under the opposite premise, thinking that the government can (and should) remedy every problem (real or imagined), and thus should be given ample authority to play around with citizens' lives as they see fit. A short name for that arrangement is authoritarianism (however democratic it may be).

 

[loseyourname]

In a two party system like yours maybe...

Okay, under what systems does the party that identifies itself as "liberal" advocate the hands-off governing approach of classical libertarianism?

Is your congress the goverment?

Congress constitutes the legislative branch. The president, cabinet, and associated bureaucracies constitute the executive branch. The court system constitutes the judiciary branch. Together, they are the government. In their legal functions, the legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch executes the laws, and the judiciary branch enforces the laws. (It's a little more complicated with the checks and balances, but you get the idea.)

I'm not aware of a system in which any of these legal functions are carried out by agents that are not part of the government.* If there is such a system that you know of, I'd be happy if you'd tell me about it.

*Note: Excepting the ability of PIs and private security firms to enforce laws where the government-run police force is not enough.

 

[Anttech]

So the democrates who have been elected into congress, have no say in the legislation process? Thats what you are implying isn't it?

In the UK the Goverment is the Labour party as they have the most seats in the house of commons. But all Bills, to become law have to pass through the above mention house. This is to say that the government does not MAKE laws, they propose Bills, then EVERYONE in the house votes on wheather they believe in the Bill or dont, Yah or Nah!

So to say that the Goverment "imposed" Laws is not true...

The very concept that government should be pursuing something as ethereal, vague, and ill-defined as "social justice" is anathema to the very principles of personal freedom (and responsibility) that the US stands for.

Social Justice not ethereal, its quite apartent if don't choose to ignore it... If the USA doesn't believe in "Social Justise" (Which to be honest I think the majorty of people in the US do) then does your nation believe in? Freedom to exploit at will?

In Europe you operate basically under the opposite premise, thinking that the government can (and should) remedy every problem (real or imagined), and thus should be given ample authority to play around with citizens' lives as they see fit. A short name for that arrangement is authoritarianism (however democratic it may be).

This is just B.S.

I don't see any EU country unilaterally making desisons that effects everyone on the planet. I however do see this authoriterian behavour from the US administration...

 

[Anttech]

Of course Europe is nothing but a long history of such projects, from pogroms, to state religions, to socialism, but America was founded by men fleeing from a government that would trample them for the pursuit of a "higher good".

And what "Higher good" was that... Your nationalism is blinding you from what your government is doing currently

 

[Ivan Seeking]

McClellan makes it sound like Bush will actually veto this thing. OMG.

[In order to secure basic human rights], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security --

I think it's time to start talking about impeachment. Conspiracy to commit torture is a high crime by any standard. I hope that most Americans would still agree.

 

[loseyourname]

So the democrates who have been elected into congress, have no say in the legislation process? Thats what you are implying isn't it?

Every member of the legislature has a say.

In the UK the Goverment is the Labour party as they have the most seats in the house of commons. But all Bills, to become law have to pass through the above mention house. This is to say that the government does not MAKE laws, they propose Bills, then EVERYONE in the house votes on wheather they believe in the Bill or dont, Yah or Nah!

It works the same way here. Every member of both the House and Senate vote on laws. But the entire Congress is the government, not just the majority party. One subcommittee proposes a bill, then both houses of Congress vote on it. If it passes, it becomes law. In what sense is this not the government making laws? If the members of Congress are not the government, then what is?

So to say that the Goverment "imposed" Laws is not true...

Sure it is. I've never written a single bill, nor been given a single vote on whether or not a bill passes. Nonetheless, I must follow the laws, because if I do not, the police will arrest me and throw me in prison.

This is the way a system of government has to work. Unless every single citizen in a given nation agrees as to how they should behave, the standards of the majority (and possibly whoever first drafted the Constitution of that nation) are going to be imposed on those who do not think they should have to abide by them.

 

[ron damon]

I think it's time to start talking about impeachment. Conspiracy to commit torture is a high crime by any standard. I hope that most Americans would still agree.

would you have impeached Roosevelt for bombing Dresden?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

would you have impeached Roosevelt for bombing Dresden?

I would have impeached Roosevelt or any President for instituting or refusing to deny torture as a policy of the US.

 

[ron damon]

I would have impeached Roosevelt or any President for instituting or refusing to deny torture as a policy of the US.

You know, if torture is ever used, it's not because someone in the pentagon or the CIA thinks it is really cool, but because, believe it or not, there are people who want to kill you and your loved ones, along with thousands of others, are hard at work figuring ways to do so, do not mind dying themselves, and, if not opposed with the utmost force, will bring the modern world to its knees in an orgy of blood and destruction.

Many terrible plots, targeting both Europe and America (and Asia), have been prevented by using information obtained by intensive interrogation techniques performed on the rats in Guantanamo and elsewhere.

Would you rather have thousands of civilians die than subject some terrorist rat to torture?

 

[arildno]

You know, if torture is ever used, it's not because someone in the pentagon or the CIA thinks it is really cool, but because, believe it or not, there are people who want to kill you and your loved ones, along with thousands of others, are hard at work figuring ways to do so, do not mind dying themselves, and, if not opposed with the utmost force, will bring the modern world to its knees in an orgy of blood and destruction.

Many terrible plots, targeting both Europe and America (and Asia), have been prevented by using information obtained by intensive interrogation techniques performed on the rats in Guantanamo and elsewhere.

Would you rather have thousands of civilians die than subject some terrorist rat to torture?

Worthless nonsense, besides being rather dishonest of your own attitude to torture.
In fact, you find it rather heartening that we now may start to inflict torture on the "bad guys", don't you? Or, should we perhaps, change that to hardening?

 

[ron damon]

Worthless nonsense, besides being rather dishonest of your own attitude to torture.
In fact, you find it rather heartening that we now may start to inflict torture on the "bad guys", don't you? Or, should we perhaps, change that to hardening?

The world is what it is (and the terrorists are what they are); fleeing from reality won't make things any better. Rather the opposite.