See more recent article on TP on what Scalia says on the bans against torture in the constitution (spelled with little c be cause of what we’ve done recently).

Bottom line, the bans against torture are strictly tied to punishment. They don’t say a thing about what you can and can’t do during the interrogation phase.

Major Welborn declined to comment beyond saying, “I’d love to tell my side of the story because it’s such a false story.”

This is on the same page as the torture justification: “When you lie for Jesus, it isn’t a lie.”

Cheers,

Sadly, the note at the end indicated there were 99 tried at Nuremburg (in the late ’40’s) and by the time this movie was made in 1961, all of them were out of jail.

In fairness, some left the premises in small wooden boxes with ligature marks on their necks.

But it should also be noted that the Nürnberg prosecutors went out of their way to ensure just and fair trials (and ones that would be seen to be such), and that some of the defendants were in fact found “not guilty”. Not so our Guantánamo “show trials”. Click the link for the details.

Cheers,

“The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act,” said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public.

The Convention Against Torture:

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

[...]

Article 2

[...]

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Cheers,

Jane, I may be wrong, but didn’t Sean Bell almost run over one of the officers with a car?
Didn’t someone in the group say something about a gun?
I think that is why they were acquitted, is it not?
A very tragic mistake. But the fact is if Sean and the rest of the group had obeyed the officers in the first place. I believe he would still be alive.

Thats all I have to say.
Peace

Chaos, you’re still looking at this from a skewed perspective. The interrogators are being allowed the excuse of possible immediate or imminent threat to this country, not to themselves, to justify torture. The threat itself is not from the captive himself, but, based on someone’s idea that the captive has information that could foil an imminent threat to this country. That idea may just be someone’s overblown imagination, or it might be based on the flimsiest of evidence, but the idea of a threat, real or not, now absolves torture. The same as the idea that a perp might have a weapon now apparently absolves shooting that perp to death.

George “Blood-n-Guts” Patton: Speaking about treatment of German prisoners. 1943

Brain From Planet Arous Says:
Your view of reality vs my view. Since I live in the most populated area of our country, and in the middle of a major city, I can say for sure that what you are saying is not true. NYPD has a record of abuse and murder.

Brain,
Your first comment is so true. However, since I also live in the “Next” most populated area of our country(Bay Area California) in a state that is very Progressive and Liberal. I can only say for sure that what you see there is different from what I see and experience here. Although I agree that things are only getting worse with the influx of the criminal eliment being inducted/accepted to our great services. I can state I know for a fact that Police departments here in the Bay Area do not recruit or hire a sworn officer with prior criminal convictions. This is certainly not true everywhere though, as you point out. And, I agree there may be a weak link between the policies of the misadministration and your so-called “I thought he had a gun” Policy of NYCPD, I don’t agree that it is rampant among all agencies at this point.
Even so, I still stand by my comment that Officers in the heat of the moment have a split second to make that life or death decision. And unless you or Jane have ever been in that situation (I have more than once) I do not think that you or anyone else can sit there using broad generalistic brush strokes to paint all Peace enforcement officers in the same picture.
I digress though, back to my original point. I stated that the Sean Bell case was very unfortunate, it may even be a travisty in allot of peoples veiw. But, I still disagree that it has anything to do with this topic.
Interagators have no emmediate threat to themselves or this country from a captive. This is in no way the same as an officer on the ground in the heat of a situation having to make a life or death decision.

On just about everything else you point, I agree.

Then again, this document is just another piece of evidence that will be used at the Hague in a war crimes trial. The evidence is piling up, the names of the perpetrators are clear. If I were Bush, Cheney, Addington, Rumsfeld, Powell, Armitage, Rice, Feith, and all the others, I would not travel outside of the US. And I’d vote for McCain and do everything possible to get him elected to avoid being hauled up on charges here in the US.

I also work with police on a daily bases. What I see first hand does not jibe with your comment that “Cops see no problem in killing unarmed people. ”
I am personally very progressive and have hated Chimpy from day one. The majority of the officers I work with are conservative, and initially, as one might expect, were for Bush. However, this administrations attitudes and policies have had a very negative impact on many Now-ex-supporters down at this level.
Especially, since it is completely different to C

Your view of reality vs my view. Since I live in the most populated area of our country, and in the middle of a major city, I can say for sure that what you are saying is not true. NYPD has a record of abuse and murder. You also do not seem to get the connection between Bush Pre-emptive policies and the current police “I thought he had a gun”policy, whether or not they do. The argument for the Police State advocates that say, “Two officers were Black and one Lebanese”, so racism was not an issue, is a narrow, blind train of thought. These people work for racist masters. Anyone who does not think that racism, homophobia, and hatred are still alive and well in this country is, needs to be checked for brain damage.

Yes, some cops are decent, caring people, even Progressives. However, with the brain-damaged Iraqi Vets joining the force, and our violent culture, the 10% that are nuts, are very dangerous.

Brain From Planet Arous Says:
BullCarp!!
Right back at ya Brian.

More to come, gotta go.

Brings back memory of this video from the 80s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyzEwojYen0

or this song from the 60s:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keZZrubiPtE

Exactly my point. Thanks for stating it more clearly.

“…Cops on the street have to decide in a split second whether they choose to protect themselves from emininent [sic]danger…” And they’re supposed to rely on their best judgment and training to make that split-second decision, not shoot 50 times first and, if the alleged criminal is lucky enough to survive, ask questions later.

Next time you need to call 911, try calling yourself and see how far that gets you.

BullCarp!! It has everything to do with it. My dad was a NYC cop for 25 years, and I work with retired cops. They all say that today’s cops AND criminals are largely out of their minds with violence. What happened in the Sean Bell case is a re-enactment of the Emmett Teal case. African Americans and Immigrants are commiting crime at the highest rate on record. Cops see no problem in killing unarmed people. New Cops that are coming back from Iraq have the same “Pre-Emptive mentality as our Psycho-In-Chief. Now cops can simply say, “I thought he had a gun”, or the New-Fascists can say “We thought they had WMD’s or Nukes”. Same insanity, different levels of destruction.

Bilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
“Situational ethics”

It’s the same mind-set and excuse that got the NYC police officers acquitted after pumping 50 bullets into Sean Bell and his friends: ‘If you think there’s the tiniest chance that you’re in danger, shoot to kill.’ It’s all in the cop’s or, in this case, the interrogator’s, mind.

IMO, this is not relevant, and a poor representation.
Cops on the street have to decide in a split second whether they choose to protect themselves from emininent danger.
An Interigator is NOT in any danger from a Captive.

The incident in NYC is/was unfortuntate. Even so, you are mistaken in trying to equate the actions of the police in that situation, with the actions Bushco and the DOJ are trying to get away with.

Next time you need to call 911, try calling yourself and see how far that gets you.