QFAC: The Candidates Position on Torture

I have taken these following 8 questions from: National Religious Campaign Against Torture and they can be found here

Questions for Candidates on U.S. Torture Policy and Practices

We want to know where you stand on U.S. torture policy and practices. We would appreciate your answers to the following questions:

1. The U.S. Congress approved Senator John McCain’s amendment last year to ban torture by all U.S. government agencies. This move recognized that a ban on torture is not only a moral necessity but also essential to ensure the same protections for U.S. soldiers. Recent legislative action, however, allows harsh interrogation techniques to be used by non-military interrogators. Will you support future legislation that bans all U.S.-sponsored torture, with no exceptions and directs all U.S. agents to abide by the Geneva Conventions?

2. The federal War Crimes Act of 1996 defines a war crime as any “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions’ Common Article 3. This standard ensures that those who commit such abuses, including against our own troops, do not go unpunished. Do you believe the United States should maintain an unwavering commitment to Common Article 3?

3. The president acknowledged the existence of a CIA program that indefinitely detains “enemy combatants” in secret sites outside the rule of law and without access to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Individuals detained in such locations are afforded no safeguards of due process and may be subject to unchecked abuses. Will you call upon the United States to cease all secret detentions and provide the ICRC access to all U.S. prisoners, as required by our international treaty obligations?

4. Under the practice of “extraordinary rendition,” the United States transports individuals from one country to another without judicial oversight to face criminal charges in the receiving country. Diplomatic assurances from the receiving government are designed to protect the human rights of the detainee, but many officials have confirmed that the U.S. has no capacity to ensure humane treatment under these circumstances. Do you support a prohibition on transfers of individuals in U.S. custody to other countries where they are likely to be tortured regardless of assurances otherwise?

5. Recent legislation will permit—for the first time in the history of the United States— individuals to be convicted based on evidence obtained through abuse or torture (admitted through hearsay evidence). Will you oppose this practice, even for trials involving terrorism suspects?

6. By making War Crimes Act changes that are retroactive to Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has immunized all top government officials and CIA agents against prosecution for interrogation policies that resulted in the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and in secret government torture cells around the globe. Should top government officials, private contractors, and CIA officials be given blanket immunity for their past conduct?

7. More than two years after the Abu Ghraib photos were published — and nearly four years after the first abuse-related deaths in U.S. custody as part of the “war on terror” — we are still not in a position to say that we know how this situation came about so that we can ensure that such abuses never happen again. Do you support the establishment of an independent commission to investigate U.S. detention and interrogation policies and practices since Sept. 11, 2001, and to hold those who authorized and carried out abuses accountable?

8. Under recent legislation, the president will be permitted to authorize acts that are prohibited by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogations, without the possibility of court review of this authority. This strips the courts of their historical and constitutional role as a check on the executive branch. Do you oppose this broad expansion of executive powers, allowing the president to choose to follow or not follow international treaties, and that will side-step the authority of our courts system?

1: As President of the United States of America, I would abide by all laws on torture and bring the United States of America into line with international law that we’ve signed and also domestic law. There would be a Bill that outlawed torture by all agencies of the United States of America. I would not want any US soldiers to be tortured, nor would I want our military to torture people. We can’t display ourselves as a leader in morals when we allow prisoners to be abused.

2: I do believe that the United States of America should abide by Article Three of the Geneva Convention. We should do our utmost to treat prisoners humanly in the hope that our enemy will also do the same. In the case that he doesn’t, we should still not go down to that level. Many of these soldiers can be drafted and not have a choice to fight, many of them do not know what is better in Nations where the media is state controlled. To punish them because of this is wrong.

3: The C.I.A. will be brought into line as soon as I get into office. All secret prisons and prisoners will be named; they will be allowed access to doctors and lawyers. A period of three months will be given where the C.I.A. has to process these people under the rule of law and charge them or release them with compensation. The trial will be Jury based and not a secret military tribunal. This will go for every single “enemy combatant” these prisons and prisoners do nothing but help create terrorism.

4: I believe in the extradition of people if: They have broken a law that exists in the United States of America within their own country. The evidence however will be provided to the United States of America and an organization will be established to review this evidence – this will involve at least three judges/magistrates who will make the decision. The United States should not be a place to harbour criminals.

5: I would oppose this practice. Any information gained through torture, is evidence that legally should not be permitted. Nor should any judge take such evidence seriously – courts do not take hearsay and conjecture – they work on evidence, solid evidence. Anything gained through torture is not solid.

6: Anyone who has conducted torture, no matter the level they are in will be convicted of such crimes. There’s no immunity based on race, money, gender or anything else if I get elected president. If something is a crime than the law would apply to everyone regardless of whom they are.

7: Yes I do and I support an Organization, outside of the military to be established that will deal with abuse in the military. This goes for any abuse on our own soldiers or enemy combatants.

8: The Court has every right to check the President. The President does not have immunity from the courts, nor should he ever. He is a public servant and the Courts job is to keep him in check and to make sure that he does not abuse his power.

Originally posted by Odium
1. Will you support future legislation that bans all U.S.-sponsored torture, with no exceptions and directs all U.S. agents to abide by the Geneva Conventions?

Well that depends, I would support banning physical and most psycho-
logical torture, but there is some torture that I don't necessarily think
is bad, such as sexual torture, and short-term effect psychological tor-
ture that will not permanently damage the individual.

2. Do you believe the United States should maintain an unwavering commitment to Common Article 3?

Yes, I do, a crime is not negligible simply because it was done in a
war setting.

3. Will you call upon the United States to cease all secret detentions and provide the ICRC access to all U.S. prisoners, as required by our international treaty obligations?

Yes.
And furthermore I would have all those who participated in running
this tried, both in the United States and in the International Court.

4. Do you support a prohibition on transfers of individuals in U.S. custody to other countries where they are likely to be tortured regardless of assurances otherwise?

Yes, and further, I would end extraordinary rendition and make it illegal.

5. Recent legislation will permit—for the first time in the history of the United States— individuals to be convicted based on evidence obtained through abuse or torture (admitted through hearsay evidence). Will you oppose this practice, even for trials involving terrorism suspects?

Yes, I will.
Such confessions are completely unreliable, and the procurement of
them is a violation of human rights.

6. Should top government officials, private contractors, and CIA officials be given blanket immunity for their past conduct?

No, they should not.
Anyone who commits such acts should be tried in a court of law.

7. Do you support the establishment of an independent commission to investigate U.S. detention and interrogation policies and practices since Sept. 11, 2001, and to hold those who authorized and carried out abuses accountable?

Yes, I do, full heartedly.

8. Do you oppose this broad expansion of executive powers, allowing the president to choose to follow or not follow international treaties, and that will side-step the authority of our courts system?

Yes, I oppose it.
It is completely unconstitutional and not right in general.

1. Will you support future legislation that bans all U.S.-sponsored torture, with no exceptions and directs all U.S. agents to abide by the Geneva Conventions?

I would support future legislation to ban any type of torture of any POW that is in our custody. We should be the shining beacon of liberty and freedom to the people of the world and not be known as torturers and as an evil state.

2. Do you believe the United States should maintain an unwavering commitment to Common Article 3?

Absolutely and we should not be above Article 3 either. If our officers or our troops violate these rules we should be just as accountable.

3. Will you call upon the United States to cease all secret detentions and provide the ICRC access to all U.S. prisoners, as required by our international treaty obligations?

We are not Nazi Germany we are the United States of America. We need to close down any facility that the ICRC cannot investigate NOW and forgive any enemy combatant that was placed in those kinds of facilities. We are not above the Geneva Convention.

4. Do you support a prohibition on transfers of individuals in U.S. custody to other countries where they are likely to be tortured regardless of assurances otherwise?

If a transfer should ocour the detainees should have the protection of the Geneva Convention at all times and any agency that ignores these rules should be accountable.

5. Will you oppose this practice, even for trials involving terrorism suspects?

Absolutly, if we have solid evidence we should use it otherwise we need to let the justice system do it's job.

6. Should top government officials, private contractors, and CIA officials be given blanket immunity for their past conduct?

No. Plain and simple no.

7. Do you support the establishment of an independent commission to investigate U.S. detention and interrogation policies and practices since Sept. 11, 2001, and to hold those who authorized and carried out abuses accountable?

Yes. An international investigation needs to be conducted in these cases.

8. Do you oppose this broad expansion of executive powers, allowing the president to choose to follow or not follow international treaties, and that will side-step the authority of our courts system?

Absolutly, we as a society should not tolerate someone abusing powers given to them by our constitution. We as a society should be shocked and apalled by any act by the president to side step the checks and balances system.

Torture of Terror suspects needs to be outlawed and an international convention needs to be put in place that governs the treatment of Terror suspects. The international convention would be enforced.

Iori, by sexual torture do you mean consensual S&M?

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Iori, by sexual torture do you mean consensual S&M?

Well it would'nt be torture if it was consentual.

No though, I did'nt mean S&M, I meant like taking a terrorist, and
putting him in a room and than letting bunch of horny women have
there way, until we acquired the information we were seeking.

Originally posted by iori_komei
No though, I did'nt mean S&M, I meant like taking a terrorist, and
putting him in a room and than letting bunch of horny women have
there way, until we acquired the information we were seeking.

Honestly if you put me in a room full of horny women that would have their way with me I would admit to just about anything you wanted.

So the confession would be pretty useless in that circumstance. I am sorry iori, but torture, no matter how fun it could possibly be, would be wrong.

Originally posted by whatukno
Honestly if you put me in a room full of horny women that would have their way with me I would admit to just about anything you wanted.

So the confession would be pretty useless in that circumstance. I am sorry iori, but torture, no matter how fun it could possibly be, would be wrong.

Well, regardless if we got a confession or not, it would make the women
happy, would keep the suspect busy, and jsut think how much money
the government could make if we taped it and sold it on the market!

I can see it now "Support America, buy 'Terror(s) In the Bedroom'."

[edit on 3/30/2007 by iori_komei]

Originally posted by whatukno

Originally posted by iori_komei
No though, I did'nt mean S&M, I meant like taking a terrorist, and
putting him in a room and than letting bunch of horny women have
there way, until we acquired the information we were seeking.

Honestly if you put me in a room full of horny women that would have their way with me I would admit to just about anything you wanted.

So the confession would be pretty useless in that circumstance. I am sorry iori, but torture, no matter how fun it could possibly be, would be wrong.

As soon as they consent, it stops being torture.

If I consent, to having someone do something to me - what business is it of anyone else?

1. As President, I will abide by not only the amendments that exist in regards to torture,but to all things.
2. I believe that an American president should abide to all articles of the Geneva Convention.
3. Yes, as President I would allow ICRC to investigate anything they'd like. If anything is found to be wrong, I will correct it.
4.Yes,I support such a prohibition. I think that it is the duty of the United States, regardless of the circumstance, to promote fair treatment to all peoples.
5. I plead the 5th on this one.

6. Nope. I believe that people who are in leadership roles should be held accountable for their deeds.

7. I support any investigation that anyone wishes to conduct.

8. I do oppose the broadening of executive power because I believe it leaves the doors open for the development of a dictatorship.

Will you support future legislation that bans all U.S.-sponsored torture, with no exceptions and directs all U.S. agents to abide by the Geneva Conventions?

Yes. Simply put, I think the United States cannot justify torture, even in the name of combatting terrorism, or "enemy combatants".

There are many horrible measures that historically have been used in the name of the greater good, and a greater good sometimes even achieved as a result, such as the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan. As nightmarish the consequences, as irreparable the damage to Japan, it was a major turning point that quite possibly prevented the Axis from achieving Global Domination. However, the effects were so hideous, so unspeakable, that we now explore every other possible option before even thinking about using nuclear weapons.

The TV show "24" illustrates, pretty much every episode, a situation in which information and cooperation by a terrorist is needed so immediately, so quickly, that torture is the only option in obtaining that information. In reality, however, this is not the case on anything even remotely approaching a regular basis. Many former heads of the Secret Service, NSA, FBI, and CIA have even gone on record saying there was never a "24" type situation during their entire career.

If, in the rarest of circumstances, a "24" type situation unfolded, and it was absolutely known for certain that the lives of millions depended on information that was absolutely known to be in the possession of one person, and the only possible method that could coax this information out was through torture, then circumstances might dictate extreme measures in desperate times, but it would be with the understanding that those involved in allowing the decision would face criminal prosecution charges, would have to answer to a court of law, and at the very lightest, they would be fired for allowing the situation to get that bad in the first place. At the worst, they would be imprisoned for capriciously deciding to torture in lieu of other available options.

In any event, torture should NEVER, under any circumstances, be institutionalized, condoned, or otherwise accepted as a standard procedure, if we are to ever consider ourselves as being on a higher moral ground than the terrorists.

Do you believe the United States should maintain an unwavering commitment to Common Article 3?

Yes. If we do not hold ourselves to the standards that we hold others, then we have no moral ground to stand upon. If anyone, be they a Banana Dictator or the President of the United States, commits a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, then they should be tried as a war criminal according to due process, and their punishment dealt accordingly.

Will you call upon the United States to cease all secret detentions and provide the ICRC access to all U.S. prisoners, as required by our international treaty obligations?

Yes. I am firmly against "Black Bagging". If more Americans were aware of the terrifying reality that they might, at any point in time, be declared an enemy combatant, have all Constitutional and Judicial rights stripped from them, be shipped to a "detention facility" where they are tortured and held incognito for years at a time without ever being charged with a crime (much less given a fair trial with evidence), and never be allowed representation or contact with the outside world, then Bush would already be out of office.

Unfortunately, most people don't see this aspect, and only assume that guilty terrorists from Axis of Evil nations, whom have been caught red handed, are the only inmates of these facilities. The sickening truth is that this has already occurred to Americans, as well as members of our allied nations.

I can understand the need for secret extridition locations where international criminals and terrorists, and witnesses, are temporarily transported to, for security reasons. In many locations the secrecy of these locations is the only way that these people may be safely moved from Point A to Point B. However, there is absolutley no reason that they should not later be moved to a facility on American soil as the final destination. This facility in turn, should have a standard due process that is equally applied and allows for fair representation, fair trial, and humane sentencing (or alternately, the death penalty) if guilt is determined by a jury or military tribunal. This facility and the process should be publicly transparent, and regularly reviewed for compliance by a non-governmental organization such as the Red Cross and Human Rights Watch.

I realize that, as a result of this, it would make the job of combatting terrorism more difficult. In my opinion, that's tough. Terrorism is nothing new. The headlines of the early 1900's read much as they do today. Terrorism will never end, it is a global chaotic x-factor that will forever exist in some form or another as long as there are two people who disagree enough to kill innocent people over it. We cannot allow ourselves, as a nation to be dragged down to their level in the name of fighting a war that can never be won, and can never end. Sometimes innocent people will die because some horrible monster of a person or organization wanted to make a big enough point. We must not allow ourselves to become the very monsters we are fighting.

Do you support a prohibition on transfers of individuals in U.S. custody to other countries where they are likely to be tortured regardless of assurances otherwise?

I think once we have a criminal/terrorist in our possession, they are our responsibility. When they leave our possession, they are not our responsibility. We cannot control what another country does with their inmates, and the automatic assumption they will not hold to their word is poor foreign policy. If we have a suspect whom could be transferred to a country we strongly suspect will torture them, then I suggest we first determine their guilt in a court of law via due process. If they are determined to be innocent, we instead offer political asylum. It is the least we can do for uprooting and holding an innocent in the first place. If guilt is determined, and due process requires the transport of a proven criminal to that country, then we must do so unless some other extraordinary condition exists. The repurcussions of torture must be placed upon the offending country, publicly, until international pressures force them to stop. Unfortunately, we currently fall into this category, we just don't leave marks.

5. Recent legislation will permit—for the first time in the history of the United States— individuals to be convicted based on evidence obtained through abuse or torture (admitted through hearsay evidence). Will you oppose this practice, even for trials involving terrorism suspects?

Yes. Confessions obtained from torture are proven to be unreliable. Confessions under duress and without legal representation go against everything our judicial system stands for. The institutionalizing of such a stance is a horrendously slippery slope that will inevitably permeate our own citizens judicial system if left unchecked.

6. By making War Crimes Act changes that are retroactive to Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has immunized all top government officials and CIA agents against prosecution for interrogation policies that resulted in the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and in secret government torture cells around the globe. Should top government officials, private contractors, and CIA officials be given blanket immunity for their past conduct?

Absolutely not, and I would do everything in my power to revoke that act. It is my firm belief that no one is above the law. Ever. And certainly not an entire blanket echelon of the government. That is one of the first steps towards a permanent tyranny.

Do you support the establishment of an independent commission to investigate U.S. detention and interrogation policies and practices since Sept. 11, 2001, and to hold those who authorized and carried out abuses accountable?

Yes. And unlike the current administration, I'd actually listen to this commission.

Do you oppose this broad expansion of executive powers, allowing the president to choose to follow or not follow international treaties, and that will side-step the authority of our courts system?

Yes, and in point of fact I would roll back most of the current administrations newfound executive powers. They were only to be granted for a few years to get through an immediate crisis, and instead are becoming instution, as was fully predicted by many. The faith and goodwill of the American people has been sorely abused by this "presidency" (if it can even be called that anymore), and I intend to give that faith and goodwill back, and put an end to this slippery slope towards tyranny and oppression. The US Constitution accounts for a President as head of the Executive Branch, not a Fuhrer, as Bush and company seem to have thought.


(edit for various grammar and spelling problems)

[edit on 4/3/2007 by thelibra]

Questions for Candidates on U.S. Torture Policy and Practices

1. Will you support future legislation that bans all U.S.-sponsored torture, with no exceptions and directs all U.S. agents to abide by the Geneva Conventions?

My stance on war is a bit different than some others. When/if I ever go to war, I'm going to win, not have a tea party. What that means is that there are no rules of war; it's kill or be killed. If there's rules to a war, then it's not a war, it's a game.

Just think of it like this. "We're going to go have a fight, but you can't punch me in the head or crotch. The fight ends when one of us passes out." Limiting the actions of the people on either side just forces them to do it secretly instead of openly, as it should be. To me, hiding it like this does nothing but show the rest of the world how much of a hypocrite everyone is. It's time we all wake up and realize how stupid we look sometimes.

2. Do you believe the United States should maintain an unwavering commitment to Common Article 3?

I believe that if we're going to go to war against someone that we need to do whatever is in our best interests to ensure victory, not some prolonged war. If that breaches Article 3, then I'm against it. However, if we can do it such that we stay within the restrictions of Article 3, and can finish the war in a timely manner, then I'd be all for it. All wars should be as painless and short as possible.

3. Will you call upon the United States to cease all secret detentions and provide the ICRC access to all U.S. prisoners, as required by our international treaty obligations?

If we've signed a treaty stating to that effect, then yes, in fact I would stay within the bounds of what we said we'd do, to a point. When my men's/women's lives are in the balance, then I'm going to always side with them. I'm a man of my word, but my people always take precedence. That being said, I disagree with these blanket statements. They don't allow for the exceptions that we all know will happen.

4. Do you support a prohibition on transfers of individuals in U.S. custody to other countries where they are likely to be tortured regardless of assurances otherwise?

Simply put, yes.

I don't want anyone to be tortured unneccessarily. It's just a sad day when someone gets hurt for no good reason. However, if that person is withholding evidence that could help us in the capture of someone that would shorten the length of the war, then torture may be justified. Torture has been termed inhumane, when in fact, being inhumane is allowing the slaughtering of hundreds of thousands of people, just because someone doesn't want to treat a prisoner too harshly.

5. Will you oppose this practice, even for trials involving terrorism suspects?

No, since that would be the point of the torture in the first place; to gather intelligence on the enemy.

6. Should top government officials, private contractors, and CIA officials be given blanket immunity for their past conduct?

No. I don't think that anyone should be allowed to be given any kind of blanket immunity, since it leads to corrupt behavior. Past transgressions are just as bad as if they happened today. It's my opinion that no one is above the law, MYSELF INCLUDED. Everyone will answer for what they've done, whether it be good or bad. Bad begets bad, and good begets good. Just a simple philosophy.

7. Do you support the establishment of an independent commission to investigate U.S. detention and interrogation policies and practices since Sept. 11, 2001, and to hold those who authorized and carried out abuses accountable?

If such abuse is alleged, then yes, of course. Just because I condone the use of torture during times of war only, doesn't mean that I'm going to allow them to be so mistreated that they won't heal. The kinds of torture that I condone are the kinds that are not long-term. It's entirely a psychological conditioning. Physical pain is a great motivator, and yet the fact is that there are several ways to get lots of pain out of someone with no long lasting side effects. Do I like torture? NO, of course not. But it IS a means to an end. A fast one at that.

8. Do you oppose this broad expansion of executive powers, allowing the president to choose to follow or not follow international treaties, and that will side-step the authority of our courts system?

I think any law that gives any ONE PERSON the ability to usurp total control of a situation is a bad idea. That effectively creates a dictatorship, where the "dictator" has no one that can stop him/her from doing whatever he/she wants. This creates a dangerous situation that cannot end well for anyone. Bad idea all the way around.

TheBorg

Originally posted by iori_komei

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Iori, by sexual torture do you mean consensual S&M?

Well it would'nt be torture if it was consentual.

No though, I did'nt mean S&M, I meant like taking a terrorist, and
putting him in a room and than letting bunch of horny women have
there way, until we acquired the information we were seeking.

So you advocate rape.

Originally posted by Johnmike
So you advocate rape.

No, that was really all tonge in cheek.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Well that depends, I would support banning physical and most psycho-
logical torture, but there is some torture that I don't necessarily think
is bad, such as sexual torture, and short-term effect psychological tor-
ture that will not permanently damage the individual.

Maybe you could color code your responses from now on so that we know when you're lying and when you're not?

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by iori_komei
Well that depends, I would support banning physical and most psycho-
logical torture, but there is some torture that I don't necessarily think
is bad, such as sexual torture, and short-term effect psychological tor-
ture that will not permanently damage the individual.

Maybe you could color code your responses from now on so that we know when you're lying and when you're not?

The thing about sending a bunch of women in was what I was kidding
about.

Torture really is'nt the word to use when it comes to the sexual part, I
think the term sexual manipulation persuasion might be a better term.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Torture really is'nt the word to use when it comes to the sexual part, I
think the term sexual manipulation persuasion might be a better term.

Okay so what do you really mean?

Well, I'm not sure I can really say it here, as it probably violates the T&C.

But basically causing them so much pleasure that they eventually lose
there ability to keep lying.

Um...hello? That's called rape. You are advocating rape as a form of torture. Perhaps you would benefit from the aid of a dictionary. I will help you.

rape 1 (rāp) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.

Iori the Rapist. Is that a good campaign slogan?