About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Major newspapers reported Rice's denial that U.S. allows torture but didn't note administration's narrow definition

December 07, 2005 6:02 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: L.A. Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post reported Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's statement that the United States "does not permit, tolerate, or condone torture under any circumstances," without noting that the Bush administration's definition of torture is at odds with international standards.

37 Comments

The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post all reported Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's December 5 statement that the United States "does not permit, tolerate, or condone torture under any circumstances," without noting that the Bush administration's definition of torture has been criticized as overly narrow. In contrast, The New York Times reported on December 7 that the administration's circumscribed definition of torture is at odds with international standards. The New York Times noted that Rice's statement has been criticized as misleading given that under the administration's definition, U.S. interrogators are free to employ methods that fall outside of the narrow category of "torture" but that violate the United Nations' Convention Against Torture. All three broadcast news outlets challenged directly or featured sources who challenged Rice's misleading statement, noting that it rested on the administration's limited definition of torture.

In a December 5 statement made before departing for a trip to Europe to meet with foreign government officials about concerns over reports of secret prisons operated on that continent by the CIA, Rice responded to recent criticisms of the United States' treatment of detainees by saying "the United States does not permit, tolerate, or condone torture under any circumstances."

In December 6 articles, two major newspapers -- The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) -- printed Rice's statement but did not report that the administration's definition of torture has been criticized by human rights groups, government officials, and members of Congress, including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who authored an amendment defining torture that the White House has threatened to veto.

On December 6, Post staff writer Glenn Kessler reported, without clarification, Rice's statement, "The United States government does not authorize or condone torture of detainees." Journal staff reporter David Crawford wrote, "In her departure statement, Ms. Rice said the U.S. doesn't use or condone torture 'under any circumstances' to extract information from terrorism suspects, saying the U.S. will use 'every lawful weapon' to defeat terrorist groups." In a separate editorial published on December 7, the Journal argued that "Ms. Rice's pledge that the U.S. isn't 'torturing' anyone on European soil, or anywhere else, ought to be all the reassurance Europeans need." A third paper -- the Los Angeles Times -- only noted a statement by former Irish President Mary Robinson to an Irish news outlet that the administration is "ambivalent about what constitutes torture."

In contrast, while a December 6 New York Times article simply reported Rice's assertion without noting its evasiveness, two separate stories the newspaper published December 7 addressed the criticism over Rice's statement and the administration's definition of torture. The first article, by reporter Joel Brinkley, noted that "the American definition of torture is in some cases at variance with international conventions, and the administration has maintained in recent years that American law does not apply to prisoners held abroad." The second article, by staff writer Richard Bernstein, detailed the response to Rice's December 5 statement by European government officials:

Others pointed out that the Bush administration's definition of torture did not include practices like water-boarding - in which prisoners are strapped to a board and made to believe they are about to be drowned -- that violate provisions of the international Convention Against Torture.

Andrew Mullin, a Labor member of Parliament, said he had found Ms. Rice's assertions "wholly incredible." He agreed with Mr. Tyrie that Ms. Rice's statement had been "carefully lawyered," adding: "It is a matter of record that people have been kidnapped and have been handed over to people who have tortured them. I think their experience has to be matched against the particular form of language the secretary of state is using."

In a November 9 story, The New York Times reported that a classified 2004 report issued by CIA inspector general John L. Helgerson concluded that 10 methods of interrogation, including water-boarding, did not constitute torture and were thus permissible but might nevertheless run afoul of the international Convention Against Torture, which prohibits "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of prisoners.

In addition to the Times report, December 5 news reports on ABC's World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News and NBC's Nightly News all noted Rice's December 5 statement was based on the administration's limited definition of torture.

The CBS Evening News quoted Human Rights Watch researcher John Sifton, who said, "The administration's definition of torture is extremely fleeting." Sifton also appeared on NBC's segment, saying that Rice's statement was "filled with distortions, inaccuracies, misstatements of law; it's really a disingenuous and somewhat patronizing response."

NBC's Nightly News segment also featured Jeffrey Smith, former CIA general counsel, who said, "This administration early on defined torture so narrowly that activity could be conducted that everybody else regarded as torture. Chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell also noted that the CIA is suspected of using the interrogation method known as water-boarding, a method that involves strapping an individual to a board and making them believe they are drowning.

ABC's World News Tonight also noted that "[i]ntelligence officers say the secretary can say that because of a presidential finding, which approved six enhanced interrogation techniques not defined by the U.S. as torture. Techniques, according to ABC News sources, which the men being held are regularly subjected to." Chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross previously reported on November 29 that McCain described water-boarding as "very exquisite torture" and said it should not be allowed. The report also noted that the U.S. declared water-boarding illegal during the Vietnam war.

Unlike The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal published reports following Rice's December 5 speech that included her statement without challenge, "The United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture." In fact, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, news reports have documented the CIA practice of rendition, in which detainees are transported from countries in which they are captured to others with histories of severe prisoner abuse, such as Uzbekistan.

For example, the New York Times reported on May 1 that "there is growing evidence that the United States has sent terror suspects to Uzbekistan for detention and interrogation, even as Uzbekistan's treatment of its own prisoners continues to earn it admonishments from around the world, including from the State Department." During the March 7 edition of World News Tonight, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray said that the CIA knew the Uzbeks were torturing prisoners, including one case in which he received photos of a prisoner who was boiled alive.

The November 7 New York Times story by Richard Bernstein noted:

Indeed, it would be hard to imagine a more sudden and thorough tarnishing of the Bush administration's credibility than the one taking place here right now. There have been too many reports in the news media about renditions -- including one involving a Lebanese-born German citizen, Khaled el-Masri, kidnapped in Macedonia in December 2003 and imprisoned in Afghanistan for several months on the mistaken assumption that he was an associate of the Sept. 11 hijackers -- for blanket disclaimers of torture to be widely believed.

"I think what she means is, 'We don't use it as an official way to do things, but we don't look at what is done in other countries,' " Monika Griefahn, a Social Democratic member of Parliament, said in regard to Ms. Rice's comment on torture. "And that's the problem for us."

Media Matters previously noted that news outlets were reporting an admonishment of Uzbekistan by the State Department without noting the CIA's contradictory practice of rendering detainees there. The State Department report found that Uzbek police "repeatedly tortured prisoners" frequently "with blunt weapons, and asphyxiation with a gas mask."

From the December 7 New York Times article by Joel Brinkley:

As Europeans continue to investigate whether torture or detention of terrorism suspects took place on European soil, Ms. Rice assured Mrs. Merkel that "the United States does not condone torture."

"It is against U.S. law to be involved in torture or conspiracy to commit torture," Ms. Rice said. "And it is also against U.S. international obligations."

But the American definition of torture is in some cases at variance with international conventions, and the administration has maintained in recent years that American law does not apply to prisoners held abroad.

In defending the practice of rendition, American officials have said that they obtain assurances from the third countries that prisoners will not be tortured, but that the United States is limited in its ability to enforce the promises.

From the December 7 New York Times article by Richard Bernstein:

In Britain, members of Parliament from both parties reacted with even greater skepticism to Ms. Rice's statement, saying it had neither answered their questions nor allayed their concerns about American policy.

"It's clear that the text of the speech was drafted by lawyers with the intention of misleading an audience," Andrew Tyrie, a Conservative member of Parliament, said in an interview. Mr. Tyrie is chairman of a recently formed nonpartisan committee that plans to investigate claims that the British government has tacitly condoned torture by allowing the United States to use its airspace to transport terrorist suspects to countries where they are subsequently tortured.

Parsing through the speech, Mr. Tyrie pointed out example after example where, he said, Ms. Rice was using surgically precise language to obfuscate and distract. By asserting, for instance, that the United States does not send suspects to countries where they "will be" tortured, Ms. Rice is protecting herself, Mr. Tyrie said, leaving open the possibility that they "may be" tortured in those countries.

Others pointed out that the Bush administration's definition of torture did not include practices like water-boarding -- in which prisoners are strapped to a board and made to believe they are about to be drowned -- that violate provisions of the international Convention Against Torture.

Andrew Mullin, a Labor member of Parliament, said he had found Ms. Rice's assertions "wholly incredible." He agreed with Mr. Tyrie that Ms. Rice's statement had been "carefully lawyered," adding: "It is a matter of record that people have been kidnapped and have been handed over to people who have tortured them. I think their experience has to be matched against the particular form of language the secretary of state is using."

From the December 6 edition of The Wall Street Journal:

A spokesman for the German government said that, in preparatory talks about Ms. Rice's visit, the U.S. assured Germany that she will respond to questions raised about the U.S. policy and practice, and provide additional details about U.S. government flights.

In her departure statement, Ms. Rice said the U.S. doesn't use or condone torture "under any circumstances" to extract information from terrorism suspects, saying the U.S. will use "every lawful weapon" to defeat terrorist groups. She declined to respond to questions about whether the U.S. is holding terrorism suspects in secret in Europe, itself a controversial issue for European officials aside from the torture question. Instead, Ms. Rice focused on lives she said have been saved in Europe and the U.S. as a result of an interrogation program that has uncovered information about planned terrorist attacks.

From the December 7 Wall Street Journal editorial:

Ms. Rice's pledge that the U.S. isn't "torturing" anyone on European soil, or anywhere else, ought to be all the reassurance Europeans need.

[...]

And the most aggressive interrogation technique authorized against such men is "waterboarding," which induces a feeling of suffocation. That's rough treatment, but the technique has also been used on U.S. servicemen to train them to resist interrogations, and we suspect many Europeans would accept it if they believed it might avert another Madrid.

From the December 6 edition of the Los Angeles Times:

Rice embarked on a trip to Europe amid a monthlong furor over alleged secret CIA prisons there and widening suspicions by European leaders and citizens alike that U.S. agencies have adopted brutal tactics in dealing with terrorism suspects.

But in response to a call for clarification from European leaders, Rice was unyielding Monday. She declared that the United States does not torture prisoners or hand them over to governments that do, but she refused to confirm or deny that the U.S. government maintains secret prisons around the world -- called "black sites" by critics -- to detain terrorism suspects, a chief concern of many of the Europeans.

[...]

But former Irish President Mary Robinson told Irish broadcaster RTE that the Bush administration remains "ambivalent about what constitutes torture" and has not disclosed whether it is shipping suspects through Ireland.

From the December 6 edition of The Washington Post:

Rice also asserted that the United States does not transport terrorism suspects "for the purpose of interrogation using torture" and "will not transport anyone to a country when we believe he will be tortured." She added that "where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured."

"The United States government does not authorize or condone torture of detainees," she said.

The United States is a signatory to the U.N. Convention Against Torture, in which nations pledge to refuse to torture and pledge to prevent cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners. The Bush administration, however, has argued that the obligations concerning cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment do not apply outside U.S. territory.

The Post article reported that CIA interrogators in the overseas sites have been permitted to use interrogation techniques prohibited by the U.N. convention or by U.S. military law. Asked about this apparent contradiction, Rice told reporters: "Our people, wherever they are, are operating under U.S. law and U.S. obligations."

Any violation of U.S. detention standards is investigated and punished, Rice said in her statement, citing the prison abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib "that sickened us all.

From the December 5 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News:

MITCHELL: Human Rights groups have said the prisons were in Poland and Romania.

SIFTON: Secretary Rice's response is filled with distortions, inaccuracies, misstatements of law; it's really a disingenuous and somewhat patronizing response.

MITCHELL: Rice also denied that the U.S. tortures prisoners, but Europeans are convinced the CIA is using interrogation techniques at these black site prisons like water-boarding and sleep deprivation.

SMITH: This administration early on defined torture so narrowly that activity could be conducted that everybody else regarded as torture.

From the December 5 broadcast of ABC's World News Tonight:

ROSS: Before leaving for Europe, Secretary of State Rice today also reaffirmed the U.S. does not use torture.

RICE: The United States does not transport, and has not transported detainees from one country to another, for the purpose of interrogation using torture.

ROSS: Intelligence officers say the secretary can say that because of a presidential finding, which approved six enhanced interrogation techniques not defined by the U.S. as torture. Techniques, according to ABC News sources, which the men being held are regularly subjected to.

From the December 5 broadcast of the CBS Evening News:

MARK PHILLIPS (correspondent): As denials go, this one seemed pretty blanket.

RICE: The United States does not permit, tolerate or condone torture under any circumstances.

PHILLIPS: The U.S. has been accused by human rights groups of transporting detainees to secret prison camps including one in a remote Soviet-era air base in Romania.

[...]

PHILLIPS: Secretary Rice's torture denial has not satisfied the critics.

SIFTON: The administration's definition of torture is extremely fleeting.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by steve expat (December 07, 2005 7:15 pm ET)
         
      Notice that Rice has never said that torture didn't take place. Only that the U.S. doesn't allow or condone it. Maybe it's semantics, but this Administration is good at semantic lying.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by starwheel (December 07, 2005 7:25 pm ET)
           
        I would disagree. I don't think the administration is very good at lying at all. In fact, it would be downright laughable except for the fact that they are embarrassing the hell out of our great country and causing substantial human suffering in the process.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Anonymous Dem (December 07, 2005 9:01 pm ET)
         
      If Rice were subjected to these "not torture" techniques in return for a confession that they are torture, it would probably take about 10 seconds. It's sad that this Administration would conduct such reprehensible, immoral conduct as widespread routine torture, deny it, and expect people to believe their obvious lie.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tex (December 07, 2005 9:30 pm ET)
         
      To the Bush Administration, the only thing that constitutes "torture" is having to watch Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911". Anything OTHER than that cannot be considered "torture", and is thus perfectly acceptable. Needless to say, no one under orders from this Administration would dare even mention this film, let alone SHOW it to anyone. So ... torture? ... don't do it, don't condone it, yadda yadda yadda.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by solon (December 07, 2005 9:40 pm ET)
         
      It is long past time for this administration to stop denying they are torturing people admit their mistake and STOP TORTRUING PEOPLE
      Report Abuse
    • Author by chevyman (December 08, 2005 5:45 am ET)
         
      Is beheading a prisoner torture? Is flying a plane into a building occupied by thousands of innocent people torture? Is blowing up car bombs in highly populated areas torture? Is making a terrorist uncomfortable in the hopes he/she might give valuable information that could save innocent lives, torture? Short of killing them, I say, any means of extracting needed info from those whose sole purpose in life is to kill innocent people is not torture. Do you have a better idea?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (December 08, 2005 6:38 am ET)
           
        We have killed them you idiot. We have tortured people to death. Lindsey Graham says the pictures he has seen from Abu Ghraib depict RAPE AND MURDER , thats murder as in to DEATH. The Taguba report also cites a man beaten to death. Listing the bad things the terrorists do in no way justifies us doing it. Yes blowing up civilian targets is a bad thing perhaps WE shouldnt have done that like we did in 1984 the worst car bombing in the Middle east in the 80's aimed at civilian targets was at a Beiruit mosque and the CIA was behind it. We are most responsible for what WE DO, what part of that simple, elementary, moral principle dont you understand. However evil others are doesnt mean we should lose sight of the values of OUR country and imitate them. STOP making appologies for torture its disgusting
        Report Abuse
        • Author by chevyman (December 08, 2005 8:32 am ET)
             
          Let's just sit back and wait for the terrorists to infiltrate this country, set off their WMD's, killing thousands, if not millions of innocent Americans. At least we will have a clear conscience, having treated these same terrorists as humans. When will you people stop defending evil, and realize we have to fight fire with fire, or surender to the will of those who have no morals. I consider it an even trade, one terrorists life for the continued life of one American citizen, much less millions. Until the enemy realizes that we mean business, they will continue to perform their evil acts against us and the rest of the world. If a dog bites, you put it down.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by spacemanspiff (December 08, 2005 9:40 am ET)
               

            At least we will have a clear conscience, having treated these same terrorists as humans.

            I'll choose one question from many possible ones: why are you so certain that everyone detained by the administration is in fact a terrorist? If there's sufficient evidence to prove this charge, then surely the detainees could be convicted in a court of law rather than held without trial.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by wanderwoman (December 08, 2005 10:52 am ET)
               
            When we sink to the level of using torture, we have already "surrendered to the will of those who have no morals".
            Report Abuse
          • Author by rufus t firefly (December 08, 2005 12:32 pm ET)
               
            Chevyman makes several ridiculous assumptions. First, condemning torture is in no way suggesting we roll over and ignore the very real threat of WORLDWIDE terrorism. How much safer ARE we at home 4 years after Sept 11th? Secondly, who is defending evil? These are some bad dudes, no quarrel there, but they are humans, make them uncomfortable, don't kill them. Actually, flying a plane into a building is not torture, it's murder. The generalization that being against torturing prisoners implies sympathizing with the terrorists or wanting to ignore them is pure BS; it's the kind of mindless drivel spewed by the righty talking heads 24/7.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (December 08, 2005 1:17 pm ET)
               
            First of all to pretend we are torturing ONLY those who are terrorists shows you have lost all touch with reality. Remember Mahar Arar, the Canadian citizen? He did NOTHING. Second to say that we either must surrender to evil or become evil ourselves is a false dichotomy. These guys are not so tough. Third there is scant evidence that torture works anyway. Lastly it is against the law. At least you are honest enough to embrace the evil darkness in what still passes for your soul. So contact your congressman and complain that we ought to be torturing people and only us weakneed liberals are against torture. Oh by the way, oh master of projection it is YOU that is defending evil, beyond that it is you that is arguing that my good country BECOME evil. Maybe thats the way you see the values of this country it certainly isnt the way I see it.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by tex (December 08, 2005 8:30 am ET)
           
        CHEVYMAN: The Rightwing is OUTRAGEDl over Kerry for suggesting that breaking into Iraqi houses at night TERRORIZES the occupants, including innocent women and children. Now you say we SHOULD emulate terrorists, and do whatever it takes, because our enemy is brutal. Which is it? Are we TERRORISTS, and proud of it? Or are we offended when someone might suggest we use terrorist tactics? See, it can't be BOTH.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by chevyman (December 08, 2005 8:38 am ET)
             
          Would you bring a knife to a gunfight? No, you use equal, if not superior force to protect American lives, even yours. Imagine the outrage if there were a terrorist attack, killing thousands of Americans, that could have been prevented by a little physical pain, inflicted upon a terrorist to get him/her to come forth. You people would be besides yourselves, blaming the President for not doing enough to stop it. The Hypocracy in this country is sickening. You can't have it both ways.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by spacemanspiff (December 08, 2005 8:59 am ET)
               
            Hypocracy . . . Do you mean "hypocrisy"? Or have you coined a new synonym for limited government?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (December 08, 2005 11:20 am ET)
               
            "Imagine the outrage if there were a terrorist attack, killing thousands of Americans, that could have been prevented by a little physical pain, inflicted upon a terrorist to get him/her to come forth." ----- Imagine the outrage in Iraq (and the outrage that should have been in America), when the American "Shock and Awe" attack killed thousands of innocent civilian Iraqis, all ostensibly as revenge for an attack that had nothing to do with Iraq. I don't care what party the President belongs to, anyone who would do such a thing should be removed from office at the least, and tried for war crimes as a simple matter of justice. The fact that there is still no outrage about the wanton slaughter of thousands of people who had nothing to do with 9/11 sickens me. The money for 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia, and yet this Administration still has its lips planted firmly upon the posteriors of the residents of the House of Saud.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (December 08, 2005 1:25 pm ET)
               
            If it were AMERICAN soldiers being tortured you would be screaming your head off, and rightfully so, the far right constantly demands others comply to standards they would never assign to us and deny others the right to do things we demand the right to do. A virtual definition of hypocrisy. And why WOULDNT they torture Americans now? We are torturing them. Appologies for torture make my skin crawl. Demands that we DO torture is the product of a sick, sick mind. I would rather die than allow this country to become the evil we are fighting which is exactly what you are saying we do
            Report Abuse
      • Author by kiner (December 09, 2005 3:19 pm ET)
           
        I wonder how receptive people would be if we applied this same logic to our local police? "Criminals are not going to respect our laws and may be trying to kill us, therefore we should absolve our police from following any rules or laws so they can fight criminals more effectively. Fight fire with fire." If we've reached this point, how do we tell the criminals from the police?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by elshar (December 08, 2005 9:34 am ET)
         
      Compare the difference between a huge country and perhaps a few thousand terrorists using low tech weapons. The states has the means to take the moral higher ground. Not that it would bring them much advances merely make sure that their own policies aren't helping the recruitment of terrorists. (altho the word terrorist i still have trouble with .. only difference between it and a warrior is the targetting of innocent civilians. Which the French , United states , and many others nations have ordered their soldier to do ) Afsar as torture is concerned i thought the majority of the United States were christian and a grand part of that religon is do not do upon others what you would not do to yourself. I am sure as hell that the interrogation techniques used in Cuba wouldn't be used anywhere were human rights might apply.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ileangood (December 08, 2005 11:38 am ET)
         
      Chevyman- The problem with your argument (other than immorality) is that it assumes that torture will work--that we have a reasonable chance of using torture to prevent terrorist attacks. The problem is you can't torture someone into telling you the truth--you can torture someone into telling you what you want to hear. People will confess to crimes they didnt' committ, share details of plans that don't exist and implicate innocent people if they believe that saying those things will get you to stop beating them, water boarding them, or sodomizing them. Torture doesn't get us reliable information--which makes it an ineffective means for information gathering. What torture is effective at is A) Convincing the Iraqi people that we aren't different from the despot who we claim to be protecting them from, B) Convincing more of the disillusioned Iraqis that maybe Osama Bin Laden has a point and to fight for their country they should join the insurgency, C) weakening our bargaining position with all of the world's human right's violators (cause we can't tell China to stop have dissidents sow soccer balls with their teeth if we are torturing people in black out prisons all over the world), D) tarnishing the shine on America as the champion of liberty and human rights. So tell me again, why should we torture people...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by lodi (December 08, 2005 12:08 pm ET)
         
      A recent poll indicated that a substantial majority of the American people feel that in some circumstances, it ok to torture a terrorist. I agree with them. Many of the comments here are a clear indication of why the American people DON'T TRUST democrats to wage war, results from another recent poll. While I respect all of your right to your opinions, you're DEAD wrong on many of those opinions dealing with war and how you WIN. I mean if winning is still the objective.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by rufus t firefly (December 08, 2005 12:40 pm ET)
           
        You don't "win" a war against an ideology and a shadow enemy with guns and bombs, or torture. Anyone who can't see that this administration's management of this alleged war up to this point hasn't been completely botched has their head in the sand. BushCo has no clear standard for winning at this point and no idea how to go about it if they did. We've made a bad situation worse and we need to realize it and do the best we can to fix things.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by spacemanspiff (December 08, 2005 12:44 pm ET)
           

        A recent poll indicated that a substantial majority of the American people feel that in some circumstances, it ok to torture a terrorist.

        Are you claiming that every detainee is in fact a terrorist? If you have evidence of this, you'd be doing the world a huge favor by turning it over to the government so that the prosecution can get to work proving its case. Otherwise, your suggestion that it's okay to torture detainees because it's okay to torture terrorists is based on an unproven assumption.

        While I respect all of your right to your opinions, you're DEAD wrong on many of those opinions dealing with war and how you WIN. I mean if winning is still the objective.

        Are we "at war" with every single one of the detainees? Are you claiming that anyone the government chooses to detain is automatically an enemy combatant? As above, if you have evidence of this, you'd be doing the government a huge favor by turning it over.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by lodi (December 08, 2005 3:35 pm ET)
             
          I wasn't making any declaration about whether ALL detainee's are terrorists, I was merely pointing out a poll regarding American attitudes regarding terrorists. You "assume" all detainee's are not terrorists and I agree that some are probably not. I TRUST those in our military to make that determination, and my expectation is that they will NOT be perfect in the assessments (just as Grand Jury's aren't perfect either). Unless of course you wish them all to be given "grand jury" hearings and habeaus corpus rights, which would effectively lose the war. Which brought me to my second point about the American people's view of Democrat's ability to wage war. This is a very good example perhaps, of why the American people feel that way.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by spacemanspiff (December 09, 2005 7:09 am ET)
               

            I wasn't making any declaration about whether ALL detainee's are terrorists, I was merely pointing out a poll regarding American attitudes regarding terrorists.

            . . . which is relevant only to the torture of proven terrorists, not to the torture of detainees who may or may not be terrorists and who haven't received due process on that question as required by the Supreme Court in Hamdi and Rasul. Even if it were somehow okay to torture proven terrorists, the government would still have to prove -- in court -- that the detainees were terrorists.

            You "assume" all detainee's are not terrorists and I agree that some are probably not.

            You don't really get this whole "America" thing, do you? I'm not "assuming" anything about whether the detainees are or are not terrorists. I'm pointing out that the government is not legally entitled to treat them as terrorists unless it has given them due process on the question whether that's what they are. You do grasp that we have a Constitutionally limited government, don't you?

            I TRUST those in our military to make that determination, and my expectation is that they will NOT be perfect in the assessments (just as Grand Jury's aren't perfect either).

            Then your "expectation" is that some innocent detainees will be tortured, and you're okay with that. I think we've pretty much got your number, then.

            Unless of course you wish them all to be given "grand jury" hearings and habeaus corpus rights, which would effectively lose the war. Which brought me to my second point about the American people's view of Democrat's ability to wage war. This is a very good example perhaps, of why the American people feel that way.

            Yet more ignorance on parade. In fact it is not I personally but the Supreme Court -- with a Republian majority at the times of all relevant decisions -- that has held that detainees have such due process right. Nor am I a Democrat either.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by spacemanspiff (December 09, 2005 7:11 am ET)
                 

              It doesn't even permit previews, so I can't spot when I've failed to close an HTML tag properly. Here's what I hope is an improved repost:

              I wasn't making any declaration about whether ALL detainee's are terrorists, I was merely pointing out a poll regarding American attitudes regarding terrorists.

              . . . which is relevant only to the torture of proven terrorists, not to the torture of detainees who may or may not be terrorists and who haven't received due process on that question as required by the Supreme Court in Hamdi and Rasul. Even if it were somehow okay to torture proven terrorists, the government would still have to prove -- in court -- that the detainees were terrorists.

              You "assume" all detainee's are not terrorists and I agree that some are probably not.

              You don't really get this whole "America" thing, do you? I'm not "assuming" anything about whether the detainees are or are not terrorists. I'm pointing out that the government is not legally entitled to treat them as terrorists unless it has given them due process on the question whether that's what they are. You do grasp that we have a Constitutionally limited government, don't you?

              I TRUST those in our military to make that determination, and my expectation is that they will NOT be perfect in the assessments (just as Grand Jury's aren't perfect either).

              Then your "expectation" is that some innocent detainees will be tortured, and you're okay with that. I think we've pretty much got your number, then.

              Unless of course you wish them all to be given "grand jury" hearings and habeaus corpus rights, which would effectively lose the war. Which brought me to my second point about the American people's view of Democrat's ability to wage war. This is a very good example perhaps, of why the American people feel that way.

              Yet more ignorance on parade. In fact it is not I personally but the Supreme Court -- with a Republian majority at the times of all relevant decisions -- that has held that detainees have such due process right. Nor am I a Democrat either.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by spacemanspiff (December 09, 2005 7:13 am ET)
                 

              There -- I closed the italics tag I inadvertently left open.

              Whoever designed this new format set it up so that tags opened in an earlier post stay open until they're closed in a later post instead of being closed automatically at the end of each post.

              I think I'm done posting on this site. This is too much of a pain.

              Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (December 08, 2005 1:34 pm ET)
           
        lodi / Thursday December 8, 2005 12:08:56 PM EST According to the polls I have seen a substantial majority do NOT believe torture is an acceptable way to gain information http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Polls/torture_poll_040527.html May 27, 2004— Americans by nearly 2-to-1 oppose torturing terrorism suspects — Given pro and con arguments, 63 percent in an ABC News/Washington Post poll say torture is never acceptable, even when other methods fail and authorities believe the suspect has information that could prevent terrorist attacks. I think this is a clear indication why Americans think many of you rightwingnuts are souless creatures spawned in He** and wouldnt trust you to babysit their gerbils
        Report Abuse
        • Author by lodi (December 08, 2005 3:38 pm ET)
             
          http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10345320/ The Headline on MSNBC, hardly a conservative mouthpiece, is "Poll finds broad approval of terrorist torture."
          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (December 08, 2005 6:05 pm ET)
               
            Its ok for US to torture them you are also saying its ok for THEM to torture us, otherwise there is no moral consistancy. The poll I cited gave specific examples of what constitutes torture and large majorities are clearly against it. The story you cited gave no such specifics. The moral imperative here is clear. You should always treat people the way you would want your sister or brother treated because they ARE your sister and brother. When we lose sight of that we begin to lose our humanity. The question is not what THEY deserve, the question is what kind of people are WE
            Report Abuse
            • Author by lodi (December 10, 2005 8:56 am ET)
                 
              Its ok for US to torture them you are also saying its ok for THEM to torture us, otherwise there is no moral consistancy. Tell me, in your world that seeks moral consistency, would it also then be true that "if THEY torture us, then they are saying its ok for us to torture them?" Do you consider beheading torture? If so, the problem is solved, they have told us that it is OK for us to torture them since they have clearly tortured us.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by maxwell.bridges (December 08, 2005 2:24 pm ET)
         
      Let Condi spew these blatent lies so that they will come to haunt her in her bid to be president. In fact, let them come to haunt her in 2006, when the worm turns and both houses gain Democratic majorities. Then the House and Senate will "grow a pair" and start investigating IN DETAIL all of the crimes we've been smelling but the Republicans have been covering up. Condi's statements will be sufficient to send her and her bosses packing for a "black site", where they won't be tortured (using Bush's definition of torture).
      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (December 08, 2005 3:11 pm ET)
           
        I will grow wings and fly to the moon before the republican party nominates a black woman to be President of the United States
        Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (December 08, 2005 3:28 pm ET)
         
      That wonderful loophole policy in which the USA sends suspected terrorists/detainees to a foreign country that we KNOW tortures (Uzbekistan, our companion in arms) and then, wink wink nudge nudge, they promise not to torture their charge. Oooh, that's a good one. Rice is a liar. The White House condones torture. Alberto Gonzalez memo, remember?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by BillJ-MN (December 09, 2005 1:01 pm ET)
         
      What does a do?
        What does ol do?
      What does i do?
        What does ul do?
    • What does li do?
    • What does em do? What does b do? What does strong do?
      What does blockquote do?
Report Abuse
  • Author by joseph_b26 (December 10, 2005 3:01 am ET)
       
    I am so tired of the trickery coming out of the White House and the Republican Party. Now, we have to deal with semantics. Why can't this administration and the Republican Party deal with the American people straightforward with honesty and respect? I find this play on the torture issue to be far reaching, secret and wrapped deep in suspicion for who is at the levers. Behind all this, I find Dick Cheney making a plea to keep the torture option alive. At one point, Rumsfelt distance American involvement in Iraqi sponsored torture by saying Iraqi people can do what they want to do because it is their country. If we allow Rumfelt's logic to prevail, torture will be permitted and no one has to answer for it. This administration is avoiding unethical oversight and has found a way to do what they please. I am very concerned the Democrats are too concerned with playing the spin game, and at times, moves too cautously to effectively counter the Right wing strategy to dehumanize the Iraqi people more than they already have. Liberals, and I say Liberal with the pride and honor it has always held, have to "roll up their sleves, " reach deep and come up with a tactic to counter the dark road we are being lead to.
    Report Abuse

  • my.MediaMatters.org

    Login  Sign Up

    Feed IconRSS Feeds

    Get personalized rss or email alerts

    Connect & Share

    Facebook Linked In MySpace Twitter YouTube