Clinton and Torture

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Clinton And I

 

By ALAN DERSHOWITZ

October 18, 2006

 

Several years ago, I provoked a storm of controversy by advocating "torture warrants" as a way of creating accountability for the use of torture in terrorism cases. I argued that if we were ever to encounter a "ticking bomb" situation in which the authorities believed that an impending terror attack could be prevented only by torturing a captured terrorist into revealing the location of the bomb, the authorities would, in fact, employ such a tactic.

 

Although I personally oppose the use of torture, I recognize the reality that some forms of torture have been, are being, and will continue to be used by democracies in extreme situations, regardless of what we say or what the law provides. In an effort to limit the use of torture to genuinely extreme "ticking bomb" situations, rather than allowing it to become as routine as it obviously became at Abu Ghraib, I proposed that the president or a federal judge would have to take personal responsibility for ordering its use in extraordinary situations.

 

For suggesting this approach to the terrible choice of evils between torture and terrorism, I was condemned as a moral monster, labeled an advocate of torture, and called a Torquemada.

 

Now I see that President Clinton has offered a similar proposal. In a recent interview on National Public Radio, Mr. Clinton was asked, as someone "who's been there," whether the president needs "the option of authorizing torture in an extreme case."

 

This is what he said in response: "Look, if the president needed an option, there's all sorts of things they can do.Let's take the best case, OK.You picked up someone you know is the No. 2 aide to Osama bin Laden. And you know they have an operation planned for the United States or some European capital in the next three days. And you know this guy knows it. Right, that's the clearest example. And you think you can only get it out of this guy by shooting him full of some drugs or water-boarding him or otherwise working him over. If they really believed that that scenario is likely to occur, let them come forward with an alternate proposal.

 

"We have a system of laws here where nobody should be above the law, and you don't need blanket advance approval for blanket torture.They can draw a statute much more narrowly, which would permit the president to make a finding in a case like I just outlined, and then that finding could be submitted even if after the fact to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."

 

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/10/19/clinton-on-the-use-of-torture/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nysun.com%2Farticle%2F41792%3Fpage_no%3D1&frame=true

[brandon313]

there are certain situations where it is a good idea in my opinion. But not all the time

[Matter-Eater Lad]

there are certain situations where it is a good idea in my opinion. But not all the time

 

Just if a democrat does it, right?

[brandon313]

absolutely not. If there was someone in custody who knew 9/11 was going to happen, i would allow whatever it took to get him to talk.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

We should never use torture, and its been shown that torture does not even work.

[brandon313]

you honestly think that 3,000 american lives are worth less than one guy? if there was one person who knew all about 9/11 and refused to tell anyone, i would do whatever it took to get him to talk, in order to save those people.

 

but that is the ONLY scenario where i would approve of it. plus you find the ONE pro torture quote from Clinton ever and put that up saying "oh oh look the dems believe in torture" when in reality the reps have been fighting for torture this whole time.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

you honestly think that 3,000 american lives are worth less than one guy? if there was one person who knew all about 9/11 and refused to tell anyone, i would do whatever it took to get him to talk, in order to save those people.

 

but that is the ONLY scenario where i would approve of it. plus you find the ONE pro torture quote from Clinton ever and put that up saying "oh oh look the dems believe in torture" when in reality the reps have been fighting for torture this whole time.

 

No, but we will be no better then them if we use torture. And it does no good.

 

No the reps have not, their a huge difference between torture and interrogation. They're advocating for interrogation not torture, unlike good ole Willy. Except for him a small minority, most are not pro torture.

[brandon313]

you and i both know that the geneva convention has not been upheld. You should have seen the look on Mccain's face when he caved in on the torture thing. He looked so depressed and upset, like he KNEW he was doing the wrong thing. I gained alot of respect for him when he put up a fight, too bad he caved in

[Matter-Eater Lad]

you and i both know that the geneva convention has not been upheld. You should have seen the look on Mccain's face when he caved in on the torture thing. He looked so depressed and upset' date=' like he KNEW he was doing the wrong thing. I gained alot of respect for him when he put up a fight, too bad he caved in[/quote']

 

It has never been upheld. But we uphold it closer then anyone. But you cant uphold it and even hold a prisoner. If im correct torture is anything that does harm physical or emotional to a prisoner...well putting a damn prisoner in handcuffs could be that...even capturing a enemy soldier could be considered torture by the Geneva....thats why it needs to be updated.

[FIX U2 Clocks]

Y'kno when you start legalizing torture in one area, it'll overflow into others. This is dangerous. What if the guy being tortured was being an ass and joking around about a bomb. He would keep telling the authorities that it was a joke and the people wouldn't believe him and he would be tortured anyway.

 

This will get bad if it is allowed.

[brandon313]

fair enough, by the way, love the dee dee dee mencia vid!

[Matter-Eater Lad]

fair enough' date=' by the way, love the dee dee dee mencia vid![/quote']

 

Thanks.

 

Although i was thinking about something. And being fair to Clinton, because i like the man. Maybe what he's talking about in "torture" is what Bush is doing...i mean alot of the democrats consider Bush's policy to be torture, so when he said that it was what he thought was torture, not like beating the crap out of someone or shocking them or cutting off someones penis.

[berrywoman]

torture is inhumane, and no one should ever feel like they are above anyone else to condone such behaviour. At least thats my opinion.. no matter what political circus you belong to...