Its ok to detain "foreign combatants" because of information...,1282,-4650581,00.html

obtained by torture. That summarizes the US ’ position nicely. Fuck.

Well, shit.

Just what I love to hear.

Oh lovely.

Well, why am I not surprised?
“the United States would never adopt a policy that would have barred it from acting on evidence that could have prevented the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks even if the data came from questionable practices like torture by a foreign power.”

Why can’t most of the people in USA’s government understand that 9/11 was a tragedy, but it wasn’t the end of civilization so they should still act like civilized people? -_-

Torture is illegal no matter where or why and evidence gained from torture is something that belongs in the dark ages.
USA has really taken several steps back now… :frowning:


With the republicans in power, I’m not surprised.

That’s really stupid. If I was being tortured, I’d probably fucking succumb and say “YES! YES! I DID IT! I KILLED EVERYONE!” Or something obviously not true like that, because I WOULD BE FUCKING TORTURED. Jesus Christ, these fucking morons MAKE ME SICK.

This article is worded strangely to me. It says that the information being used was obtained by torture conducted under foreign powers. I’m not sure exactly what that means. As far as I know, and from what I’ve read here, no evidence is being used in court that was obtained by torture in Guantanamo. At least, the article doesn’t specifically allude to that. I’d like to hear more before going “OMG FUCK DA GOVT”

In response to Zep: “The acknowledgment by Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle came during a U.S. District Court hearing on lawsuits brought by some of the 550 foreigners imprisoned at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The lawsuits challenge their detention without charges for up to three years so far”. Its clear that there are people who are affected because of this policy. While the article doesn’t speak of the US acts of torture, it is known that torture has been used by the US as a means of extracting information and having things done, so I don’t think it is that far a leap to say that this supports the assertion the current administration isn’t shy to go the torture route. In any case, the article is straightforward in the information it presents about people held because of information acquired by torture, information which should be tossed, and that those detaining them know that the information they use to validate the detentions was acquired by torture. That’s a big deal.

I certainly am not saying that the US Administration is clearly leaning towards a torture policy, and I’m sure many decisions within the military have been made on information garnered from these methods. But we are nevertheless talking about the judiciary here, and that is a completely separate branch of government from the executive. Sure, there are judges appointed by the current administration around, but there are judges appointed from many different administrations. Who is the judge in this case? Was he appointed by Bush? I’m not sure. To me it just sounds like this article is taking a few journalistic liberties. The title of the article is "Torture can be Used to Detain U.S. Enemies’ but then later on the article seems to add this little quip buried in the text: “Boyle replied the United States would never adopt a policy that would have barred it from acting on evidence that could have prevented the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks even if the data came from questionable practices like torture by a foreign power.” Sounds to me a bit too much like “oh, by the way, what we really meant was…”

shrug It could be absolutely true, but I tend to be just as critical about what I read in the media as what I hear from the White House Press Office. They’ve all got their own agendas, and I think The Guardian’s agenda is pretty clear.

While I agree with your comments on having doubts in the media, my interpretation of Boyle’s quote saying that torture would’ve been ok to prevent 9/11, which is a statement few would contest, seems like the typical use of 9/11 to ignore civil liberties. The administration has been making these kinds of statements that imply its not patriotic to not support the administration and all that rot, like the support the troops stickers is used to justify the occupation of Iraq. It is an attempt to have people accept torture as a means to acquiring information because they piggyback it with another concept people are less willing to challenge. While you are right that the judiciary is supposed to be independent, Guantanamo is not under the jurisdiction of the judiciary as the Guantanamo trials are military tribunals.

When this is over I doubt we will have ‘Trials at Nuremberg.’

Hello, history? You are going to judge these people right?

Not if they keep winning.

This is my Points 3 thou 57 for my Not Bush camp list.

The Guardian’s agenda seem to be in line with mine…

I’m going to have to echo Zeps confusion over the wording in this article. It sounds more like this is just some manufactured excuse to detain people longer than is legal, not evidence of widespread torture.

What else is new, why do you think they send prisoners through Jordan and similars? It’s hardly a shocking revelation.

Torturing guys in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is actually legal. They aren’t classified as POWs and aren’t protected by the Geneva Convention. Technically some insurgents in Iraq aren’t covered either (since they aren’t part of a formal military and stuff like that). It is bad that we are torturing them though. We should eb the ones settign the example. Basically, it is legal, but it is bad and borders on violating human rights.

It’s not at the borders, it’s across them by several miles.