Tricky Torture Tactics

Coelacanth.

Posted to Politics on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 06:17:58 PM EST. RSS.

The White House has reached a compromise with a group of moderate Republican senators holding up proposed legislation on detainee treatment. Of specific concern is whether secret CIA interrogation tactics adhere to the Geneva Conventions.

As compromises go, however, this one is rather one-sided. The administration got the two things it most wanted. First, immunity from prosecution for past violations of the Geneva Conventions. The second is described here, from the WP article:

The White House, for its part, yielded in its demand to adopt, with congressional approval, a restricted definition of its obligations under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. That article requires humane treatment of detainees and bars "violence to life and person," such as death and mutilation, as well as cruel treatment and "outrages upon personal dignity."
The compromise language gives the president a dominant -- but not exclusive -- role in deciding which interrogation methods are permitted by that provision of the treaty. It also prohibits detainees from using the Geneva Conventions to challenge their imprisonment or seek civil damages for mistreatment, as the administration sought.

The specific language of the compromise can be found in this brief document (pdf). Section 8 (har!) appears to give the President broad latitude to define what constitutes a breach of the Conventions, and were one to be found, states that the U.S. will deal with it internally and unilaterally.

Is this a compromise at all, or was it merely an opportunity for the McCain-led group of Senators to stake out the moral high ground, without actually changing administration policy? And where were the Democrats when this was happening? Oh, right here:

Democrats sounded a cautious note about the Republican accord, calling attention to the past Republican division rather than taking a position on the compromise.

< In Death, As In Life, Blacks Take Last Place In The US

Mississippi Mayor -- Man Of The People Or Elected Thug? >

Tags: (all tags)

Add this story to:

This story: 37 comments (5 from subqueue)

Post a Comment

13	God DAMN. Fuck this shit. permazorch. Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 10:20:00 PM EST 5.00 (brilliant, brilliant)

We're talking about TORTURE! Is there no shame or outrage great enough?!
What really makes me scream and shout (besides insects, of course) is that a little less than 1/2 of the US populace seems to give a rat's ass about how things are crumbling in Iraq.
But we were speaking of torture, sorry.
From Ariel Dorfman in Sunday's Washington Post (bugmenot advised).
Can't the United States see that when we allow someone to be tortured by our agents, it is not only the victim and the perpetrator who are corrupted, not only the "intelligence" that is contaminated, but also everyone who looked away and said they did not know, everyone who consented tacitly to that outrage so they could sleep a little safer at night, all the citizens who did not march in the streets by the millions to demand the resignation of whoever suggested, even whispered, that torture is inevitable in our day and age, that we must embrace its darkness?

Are we so morally sick, so deaf and dumb and blind, that we do not understand this? Are we so fearful, so in love with our own security and steeped in our own pain, that we are really willing to let people be tortured in the name of America? Have we so lost our bearings that we do not realize that each of us could be that hapless Argentine who sat under the Santiago sun, so possessed by the evil done to him that he could not stop shivering?

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

13

Re: God DAMN. Fuck this shit.

Thalia.

Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 01:25:57 AM EST

4.50 (astute, astute)

The problem is that this is not a new problem. Our agents and buddies have been torturing & killing for decades. Some of them have been doing it on our behalf. We've been supporting murderous thugs for decades (including at one time Saddam Hussein. In fact, at the time he was gassing the kurds). This is definitely a step in the wrong direction, but it is not as large a step as you seem to believe.

Thalia

16

Re: God DAMN. Fuck this shit.

permazorch.

Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 07:41:36 PM EST

5.00 (brilliant)

Oh, Thalia. I know. I know. I know.
We've been doing it for decades, all over the planet, and no excuse (like fightin' godless commies) is good enough. Hell, we've had those secret (extraordinary rendition) prisons running for quite a long time, I believe. As for Saddam, and his gas party, I'm reminded of that old pre-war (2003) joke: "How does Geo. Bush know that Sad. Hussein has WMDs? His pops showed him the receipt!"

The step seems quite large to me, because the USA gov't is talking openly of sanctioning torture, and protecting torturers from prosecution. They're sayin, in effect, "We've got pen & paper to make this law, and fuck the Magna Carta, fuck the Rights of Man, we're the goddamn US of A!"

I'm sickened, because I am an American citizen. I know our gov't did oodles of horrible and reprehensible things long before Bush Jr. took office, but those actions were against the law, letter and spirit. Now, fuck...
Do I have to start marching with the old folks and stupid college kids?
I guess so. I'm feeling a tad bit guilty.

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

16

Re: God DAMN. Fuck this shit.

anykey.

Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 08:37:23 AM EST

none

"The problem is that this is not a new problem. Our agents and buddies have been torturing & killing for decades. Some of them have been doing it on our behalf."

I think one problem with openly endorsing torture as a policy starts when one of our soldiers gets captured. There is absolutely no incentive for our adversaries to not torture a prisoner.

"Peculiar travel suggestions are dancing lessons from God."

18

re: realpolitik approach to torture

wetkarma.

Sat Sep 30, 2006 at 05:40:25 AM EST

3.00 (interesting)

I think one problem with openly endorsing torture as a policy starts when one of our soldiers gets captured. There is absolutely no incentive for our adversaries to not torture a prisoner

Hi Anykey,
If you are going to adopt a pragmatic perspective on torture (aka the golden rule approach), then its worth recognizing that you have to go back to WW II's Western Theater to find an adversary who was willing to abide by the "rules of war" and not engage in torture. The "big wars/police actions" all had the opposition torturing the crap out of our troops (Vietnam, Korea) to the point of death/permanent injury and the "small ones" had them torturing them to the point of death (Gulf War 1, Somalia).

So then it comes to this: If I'm to follow your logic - not-torturing our captured enemies acts as an incentive for them not to torture us when we are in turn captured. Except this incentive is not working. Not only are our troops being tortured, but random civilians who are considered "fellow imperiliast travellers".

Game theory says that we might as well torture our enemies -anyway- since none of them have shown an inclination not to torture us.

If you are going to argue against torture (and I'm willing to listen as I'm somewhat of a fence sitter on the issue) then it has to be something on a firmer basis on "it will provoke our enemies to do the same to us".*

*Why is it whenever I join a debate where gerrymander has already commented, I'm A) usually taking his side and B) he's already provoked a shitstorm which would have otherwise been directed at me had I been first?

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

16

our torture history

wetkarma.

Sat Sep 30, 2006 at 05:45:34 AM EST

none

The problem is that this is not a new problem. Our agents and buddies have been torturing & killing for decades.

Indeed, and yet contrary to what most people in the threat are saying, the constitution/spirit of America still stands. Even after all these decades of "torture & killing".

Your thoughts?

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

13

the hell you say

gerrymander.

Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:04:38 AM EST

3.33 (interesting)

Loud noises, forced to stand for hours, having strange women rub up against the detained, extreme heat and/or cold. Yeah, that's torture all right -- time to ban the Democratic National Convention.

I mock, but with a point: that the current inclusion of "degrading treatment" in the list of torture practices helps no one. Shrieking about how morally sick we are to subject detainees to conditions equivalent to a good nightclub is worthless. What we need is a clear, concise definition of torture, such that anyone who reads it can understand immediately what is an acceptable interrogation practice and what is not.*

Unfortunately, this compromise bill does nothing to aid that. Instead, it just kicks the can a bit further down the road.

* My candidate for guidelines:

Permanent direct physical injury is forbidden. (No crushing fingers or cutting off toes.)
Any practice which may cause indirect physical injury or direct temporary physical injury requires a physician's oversight to limit harm. (No causing hypothermia without a doctor around to say "that's enough." Ditto waterboarding and gut punching.)
Any practice which causes no physical injury and meets US rights standards is acceptable. (Since "Piss Christ" and lap dances are acceptable, so are "Piss Koran" and female interrogators.)

23

Re: the hell you say

Thalia.

Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 01:53:04 AM EST

3.66 (astute, offtopic, interesting)

Fuck you gerrymander. Torture is well understood in international law, and it is nothing like going to a nightclub. I understand that you Americans are fucking protected in your little cocoon of "it can't happen to us" but this is nuts. Maybe you should chat with some people who were in Vietnam who didn't lose any limbs, but whose experiences did not resemble what you're talking about. Maybe you should talk to some folks from Eastern Europe, or maybe survivors from WWII. They can explain to you just fine what torture looks like. If you think water boarding or being hooked with electrodes on your genitals is acceptable, you are beyond reason. You're also obviously unaware that torture doesn't produce any useful data, so the only purpose for it is to entertain sadists.

People like you piss me off so very much. I will be entirely unsurprised if you get outraged when American soldiers are treated with anything other than kid gloves.

23

Re: the hell you say

dirigibleman.

Sat Sep 30, 2006 at 12:28:06 AM EST

3.66 (brilliant, brilliant, obnoxious)

Loud noises, forced to stand for hours, having strange women rub up against the detained, extreme heat and/or cold. Yeah, that's torture all right -- time to ban the Democratic National Convention.

You fuck. You disingenous fuck. How 'bout I come over, and stick you in a cage. For the rest of your life. For no reason you can fathom. And blast music at you for days (not hours) on end. While prevent you from sleeping for days on end. And for good measure, I'll pour fucking water over you while you're tied to a board. So that you can't breathe. And you think that you're drowning. Fuck you.

You monster. You coward. You fucking fascist motherfucking treasonist coward. You traitor. You sell not only this country's basic ideals, but the ideals of all civilized people for your chickenshit belief that anyone gives a shit about blowing you up.

You're just fine sending other people off to die for your beliefs, to sell out your very soul in some bizarre belief it will protect you. How many tours in Iraq have you completed to protect your "ideals"? How many tours in Afghanistan? What have you risked to protect your "ideals"? You're even worse than a terrorist. You, sir, don't even have the courage of your own convictions to fight for your twisted beliefs. You are even lesss worthy of respect than the shoe bomber. You're pathetic.

I just watched a trailor for a movie about Iwo Jima. Twenty-six thousand men died in that battle for your freedom. And you shit on them. Traitor. Twenty-five thousand soldiers died creating this once great country. You, you coward, have pissed on every single one of them. In a just world, monsters like you and this cowardly government we have would be in jail (but not tortured, becaused we are a better than you) for the rest of their lives.

Live free or die, you snivelling coward.

23

Convention-al thinking

Lou.

Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 04:05:08 PM EST

none

loud noises, forced to stand for hours, having strange women rub up against the detained, extreme heat and/or cold. Yeah, that's torture all right -- time to ban the Democratic National Convention.

So, by extension, you're saying that if they rubbed underage boys against them, it would be time to ban the Republican Convention?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

22	The best commentator on this subject kiwiana. Wed Sep 27, 2006 at 09:55:48 AM EST 5.00 (informative)

I've gotten a lot of information about this subject from Andrew Sullivan (found here). He also pointed readers to this article which makes it clear that, in Andrew's words:

How do I put this in words as clearly as possible. If the U.S. government decides, for reasons of its own, that you are an "illegal enemy combatant," i.e. that you are someone who
"has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States,"
they can detain you without charges indefinitely, granting you no legal recourse except to a military tribunal, and, under the proposed bill, "disappear" and torture you. This is not just restricted to aliens or foreigners, but applies to U.S. citizens as well. It can happen anywhere in the U.S. at any time. We are all at potential risk.
...
All I know is that al Qaeda is winning battles every week now. And they are winning them because their aim of gutting Western liberty is shared by the president of the United States. The fact that we are finding this latest, chilling stuff out now - while this horrifying bill is being rushed into law to help rescue some midterms - is beyond belief. It must be stopped, filibustered, prevented. And anyone who cares about basic constitutional freedom - conservatives above all - should be in the forefront of stopping it.

So who IS going to stop this? Will people demonstrate about this? Will people vote for Democrats? I'm not seeing a lot of political activity around this, but maybe from across the Atlantic I am missing something...

the only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.

1	Re: Tricky Torture Tactics dzetetes. Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 05:21:56 PM EST 4.00 (interesting)

This is all a PR show. It does nothing meaningful to further human rights.

In the absence of meaningful, regular outside review of the conditions under which specific detainees are held and interrogated, it will be business as usual in the CIA's secret prisons. Detainees cannot petition for a writ of habeas corpus, cannot seek civil damages for any wrongs done to them, and are at the mercy of the sitting POTUS's interpretation of the Geneva Conventions:

For lesser offenses barred by the Geneva Conventions -- those lying between cruelty and minor abuse, putting them at the heart of the intraparty dispute -- the draft legislation would give the president explicit authority to interpret "the meaning and application" of the relevant provisions in Common Article 3. It also requires that such interpretations be considered as "authoritative" as other U.S. regulations.

Granted, those interpretations have to be published in the Federal Register, but that's no guarantee that they will be adhered to. I don't get the impression that Red Cross or Amnesty Int'l workers are being given access to the detainees that are supposedly going to be protected by this new compromise, and since the detainees cannot force their release through habeas corpus, there's really no way to know whether interrogators are playing by the rules.

In the end, this agreement only hampers (to whatever extent it actually hampers) eager torturers under our direct employ. Unless I'm missing something, it does nothing to stop the practice of extraordinary rendition, so if we want a detainee subjected to torture, we can just farm them out to entities not officially under US control.

In regione caecorum, rex est luscus.

2 1	Re: Tricky Torture Tactics tomc. Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 05:33:56 PM EST none

"This is all a PR show."

Say it ain't so!

It wouldn't surprise me if the initial "Republican revolt" on this issue was all part of the PR plan.

4 2	Not So Sure uncarved block. Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:55:49 AM EST none

Was it all just a PR move? If so, it was pretty pointless, IMO. Very few voters are going to change their minds on the matter of torture (and it's depressing to consider how many Americans consider torture a necessary evil, or even openly thirst for it to be done to terrorists), and this not being a presidential election year, the bases are driving the outcome anyway. Even McCain doesn't come out ahead, because the conservatives who hate him- and there are many, I gather- are going to remember the initial opposition, not the rollover. (Nuance is not a big part of their world view.) Bush is a lame duck, and the only thing he might gain is a chance to say he didn't fuck his party in the last midterms; a fig leaf, at best, since his Iraq policy will be the real factor, not a legislative turf battle over face saving.
The only thing this "compromise" does is take the issue away as a Democratic talking point, but again, that's a mighty weak reason. Can you think of a Dem voter who's going to change their mind at this late date?
My guess? Sheer inertia. Both sides have been in the game so long that the charade becomes just like talking and walking, done without much conscious thought.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

8 4	Re: Not So Sure dzetetes. Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 05:31:09 PM EST none

Was it all just a PR move? If so, it was pretty pointless, IMO. Very few voters are going to change their minds...

I suspect you're right, but I don't believe it was a PR move directed at American voters to begin with. I believe it was motivated by the fact that it's occasionally expedient to pretend as though we care what the rest of the world thinks about how we project power outside of our borders.

In regione caecorum, rex est luscus.

3	how can they get away with this? kiwiana. Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:18:20 AM EST none

In the bill as now proposed (o glorious compromise) there is retrospective immunity, which will apply to anyone accused of breaches of the Geneva conventions. Oh sorry, not anyone, I mean George Bush and his sick evil cronies. Is this not the most blatant bit of self interested mendacity yet from the Bushies?

If nothing else it demonstrates that they know that not only have there been likely breaches of the conventions (well we all know that) but the administration (Rummy, Cheney, I'm looking at you) actually believe they might be found culpable for that. It amounts to an admission, really, and this is their last chance (before Congress goes Democratic) to cover their scheming asses.

I like many other people thought McCain was reasonable and had some integrity, alternatively that the American people themselves were starting to care about this issue. Count me disappointed on both counts.

And where the hell are the Democrats anyway? Why aren't they screaming about this? Why isn't EVERYONE? Kiss your moral high ground goodbye USA.

the only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.

14 3	Re: how can they get away with this? JimmyHavok. Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 12:38:05 AM EST 5.00 (informative, astute)

I like many other people thought McCain was reasonable and had some integrity

All those shots of McCain hugging Bush in '04 cured me of that. All McCain has is an overwhelming desire to sit behind that Oval Office desk, and he doesn't care what he has to do to get there.

In '00, I thought he was just a good soldier doing his duty for his party. But after his intimate exposure to Bush-style politicking in South Carolina, followed by four years of exposure to Bush-style policies, there's no way he didn't know exactly what he was heloping to put back into office, and what a disservice he was doing to the country by lending Bush his good name. But he made a cynical calculation that not embracing the President would mean losing the support of the Old Boy network, and so he went right ahead and did what his ambition told him to do.

Now his project consists of painting himself as Not George Bush, and he will be running against Bush for the next two years whenever there's a headline to be had. The headlines say "McCain opposes torture," and "McCain brokers compromise." No need for anyone to read any further. In fact, John McCain would definitely prefer you don't.

5 3	Re: how can they get away with this? nmiguy. Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 11:11:06 AM EST none

I guess Congress is uncomfortable with the idea of a sitting US president being tried for crimes against humanity for torturing people.

6 5	Re: how can they get away with this? marduk. Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 01:33:18 PM EST 5.00 (astute)

They were plenty comfortable with it in 1996.

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

7 3	Re: how can they get away with this? Coelacanth. Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 02:43:52 PM EST none

I have the same feelings about it. I didn't expect the American people to care all that much, after all, they love "24". But I expected a genuine concern on the part of McCain and Warner, not a puppet show. And I'm exasperated that the Dems can't form a coherent, strong position against torture, of all things. The Democratic platform in the fall is bound to be diffuse and scattered, and will cost them a pile of seats that are ripe for the taking.

10 7	Re: how can they get away with this? Thalia. Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 06:42:35 PM EST 5.00 (brilliant)

I wonder how Americans would react if they the same tactics being used against American soldiers.

Thalia

10

Re: how can they get away with this?

coquito.

Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 08:45:00 AM EST

5.00 (astute)

The problem is that, as JimmyHavok has put it, so many Americans don't see it the same way. It's not fair to torture American soldiers because we're just nice guys over there in Afghanistan chasing down terrorists, or in Iraq bringing freedom and democracy to the people there. Wherever we are, we're just good, American boys and girls trying to do good things in the world. But these scum we have locked up in Guantanamo or wherever - they're terrorists! If they aren't terrorists themselves then they fight alongside the terrorists, or they have information about the terrorists. I mean - as awful as it is - torturing them could help prevent the next 9/11. We can't afford to worry about the civil rights of people who'd happily kill thousands so they can sleep with 70 virgins, or 60 virgins, or however many virgins. And you can't argue that it's somehow the same as torturing American soldiers. We don't kill innocent people - at least not on purpose, and we don't worship a God that says it's OK to kill others who don't believe the way we do. And, seriously, I mean, our God is certainly not all about knocking up virgins. Have you ever heard of anything so vile? It's just not the same. It's not the same at all. Not even a little.

Now with caps!

10

White Hat Syndrome

JimmyHavok.

Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 12:40:54 AM EST

none

Easy: We're the good guys, so if we torture prisoners, it's a good and righteous thing. They are the bad guys, so if they rescue babies from burning buildigs, it's a foul and evil thing.

10

Re: how can they get away with this?

AI.

Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 03:56:17 PM EST

none

wonder how Americans would react if they the same tactics being used against American soldiers.

I'm just going to guess, exactly how they are reacting now.

Remember Kristian Menchaca & Thomas Tucker?

The statement said the soldiers were "slaughtered," suggesting that al-Muhajer beheaded them. The Arabic word used in the statement, "nahr," is used for the slaughtering of sheep by cutting the throat and has been used in past statements to refer to beheadings.

From the Washington Post story

Maj. Gen. Abdul Aziz Muhammed-Jassim, head of operations at Iraqi Ministry of Defense said the soldiers had been "barbarically" killed and that there were traces of torture on their bodies. He offered no further details.

According to CNN the bodies "The sources said the two men had suffered severe trauma. The bodies also had been desecrated and a visual identification was impossible -- part of the reason DNA testing was being conducted to verify their identities, the sources said.

I suspect that most Americans don't give a shit about torture because they feel most of America's enemies don't either.

20

Re: how can they get away with this?

dirigibleman.

Sat Sep 30, 2006 at 03:24:36 AM EST

5.00 (brilliant)

I suspect that most Americans don't give a shit about torture because they feel most of America's enemies don't either.

Then most Americans are hypocrites and traitors of the worst kind.

Real Americans don't grade their humanity on a curve.

9 7	Re: how can they get away with this? MayorBob. Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 06:04:17 PM EST 4.00 (informative)

Now it seems that the Senate is probably not going to get an agreed upon law passed by the time they all go off to get reelected. The fly in the president's ointment is Senator Arlen Spector from Pennsylvania who is insisting on a bit more clarity, especially regarding habeas corpus for detainees. He's saying that habeas corpus can only be suspended in time of invasion or insurrection. One of the White House lawyers tried to say there was an invasion on 9/11. Spector cut through the bullshit by asking, "is that invasion ongoing?" To which White House lawyer said, "if there are al-Qaeda cells currently in the US, it is." To which Spector said that's a mighty big if. Don't look for anything to get done on this until after the midterm elections.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

11 9	Re: how can they get away with this? humorlesscretin. Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 06:53:16 PM EST 4.50 (astute)

Oh look, another trifecta. Bush gets to torture people, McCain gets to look like he (vaguely) stood up to Bush, and Specter gets to look like he matters.

Humorless. Cretinous. What'd you expect?

11

Re: how can they get away with this?

marduk.

Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 10:00:43 PM EST

5.00 (brilliant)

What's wrong with the legal staus quo?

The law is fine. The criminals in the white house just keep breaking it.

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

17	Update: Not Tricky Enough Coelacanth. Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 08:36:28 AM EST none

The administration was not satisfied with the compromise as stated, and felt necessary to make it even more toothless.

But the bill's new definition "would give the administration a stronger basis on which to argue that Congress has recognized that the battlefield is wherever the terrorist is, and they can seize people far from the area of combat, label them as unlawful enemy combatants and detain them indefinitely," said Suzanne Spaulding, an assistant general counsel at the CIA from 1989 to 1995.

The article also says that McCain, Graham, and Warner are reportedly OK with the change. Specter is still opposed, which may be enough to stall things as the Mayor noted.

25	wrestler's good idea permazorch. Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 03:07:14 PM EST none

At that other place, wrestler had a good idea:
Sunshine Interrogations.
How about a law requiring that:

all interrogations (perhaps with a narrow exception for some emergent field interrogations during a declared war) must take place in a room equipped with audio recorders and multiple-angle video cams.

interrogators must clearly and formally identify themselves and their source of authority on camera.

all recordings must be released to the public, without editing or alteration, within, say, 7 years, unless extended for that specific recording by act of congress.

violations of this act are exempt from sovereign immunity, and punishable by severe felony criminal sanctions.

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

25

Re: wrestler's good idea

marduk.

Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 05:09:55 PM EST

none

It's a good idea insofar as it would almost immediately result in the end to coercive interrogation entirely.

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

26

Re: wrestler's good idea

permazorch.

Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 09:44:01 PM EST

none

An end entire would be fine with me.
I could also imagine that torture (ahem, coercive interrogation) would be enacted under such conditions if the stakes were high enough. The inquisitor with only hours to exist vs. the inquisitor on trial for coercive interrogation, perhaps years later.

"Uh, yes, I did in fact turn the volume up to 11. Subject began begging for mercy, then gave me the keycode for the bomb. The music used was ABC: The Lexicon of Love."

(Uproar ensues)

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

32	Re: Tricky Torture Tactics dirigibleman. Sat Sep 30, 2006 at 12:04:49 PM EST none

Indeed, and yet contrary to what most people in the threat are saying, the constitution/spirit of America still stands.

The same could be said for slavery, institutional racism, wholesale slaughter of the native population. Are all those just as well?

This story: 37 comments (5 from subqueue)

Post a Comment

Coelacanth.

Posted to Politics on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 06:17:58 PM EST. RSS.

God DAMN. Fuck this shit.

permazorch.

Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 10:20:00 PM EST

5.00 (brilliant, brilliant)

13

Re: God DAMN. Fuck this shit.

Thalia.

Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 01:25:57 AM EST

4.50 (astute, astute)

16

Re: God DAMN. Fuck this shit.

permazorch.

Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 07:41:36 PM EST

5.00 (brilliant)

16

Re: God DAMN. Fuck this shit.

anykey.

Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 08:37:23 AM EST

18

re: realpolitik approach to torture

wetkarma.

Sat Sep 30, 2006 at 05:40:25 AM EST

3.00 (interesting)

16

our torture history

wetkarma.

Sat Sep 30, 2006 at 05:45:34 AM EST

13

the hell you say

gerrymander.

Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:04:38 AM EST

3.33 (interesting)

23

Re: the hell you say

Thalia.

Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 01:53:04 AM EST

3.66 (astute, offtopic, interesting)

23

Re: the hell you say

dirigibleman.

Sat Sep 30, 2006 at 12:28:06 AM EST

3.66 (brilliant, brilliant, obnoxious)

23

Convention-al thinking

Lou.

Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 04:05:08 PM EST

The best commentator on this subject

kiwiana.

Wed Sep 27, 2006 at 09:55:48 AM EST

5.00 (informative)

Re: Tricky Torture Tactics

dzetetes.

Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 05:21:56 PM EST

4.00 (interesting)

1

Re: Tricky Torture Tactics

tomc.

Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 05:33:56 PM EST

2

Not So Sure

uncarved block.

Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:55:49 AM EST

4

Re: Not So Sure

dzetetes.

Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 05:31:09 PM EST

how can they get away with this?

kiwiana.

Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:18:20 AM EST

3

Re: how can they get away with this?

JimmyHavok.

Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 12:38:05 AM EST

5.00 (informative, astute)

3

Re: how can they get away with this?

nmiguy.

Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 11:11:06 AM EST