Bush Approves use of Torture

[Deegan]

This theory would be more convincing if it weren't for the nearly identical events going on around the world in US detention centers, Afghanistan, Iraq and Cuba.
It seems unlikely that it's the same few crew members who did all these similar things in all these places.

It's not apparent that these treatment regimens were generated independently. Instead, it seems that these regimens were spread.

Well I am sure these people would agree with you........

 

[gdalton]

:funny :applaud

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Well I am sure these people would agree with you........

Guess if that's all you have left in your debate repetoire, then I guess you have to go with it. However, it doesn't do much to forward the discussion. It merely makes you look like you don't know how to rebut.

When come back, bring debate.

 

[Deegan]

Guess if that's all you have left in your debate repetoire, then I guess you have to go with it. However, it doesn't do much to forward the discussion. It merely makes you look like you don't know how to rebut.

When come back, bring debate.

The debate is over, and you are left wanting, sorry pal, but you have not proved that these orders have come from the top. I have given my opinion, and I guess have not proved to you the opposite, so we shall have to agree to disagree. Still, if you want to get nasty.....well i am pretty good at that as well.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Deegan:
You are referring to three detention centers, with a total of 100 to 300 instances of torture or death, and 10 to 20 being found to have validity. It happens around the world because soldiers with problems are in all of those detention centers. It's hard not to get carried away when you hear that 21 Marines died because some coward would not come out and fight, but placed an IED and ran back to his spiderhole. I guess you're asking if the majority of Americans care, I do, but I realize the stress and inexperience that leads to such things. Again, this is not from the top, that just gets you hard, because you know the damage that does to the troops, the top brass, and eventually the president. There is less of this then with any force in the world, I can say that with much confidence, but at the end of the day, there is not much that can be done, as war is hell.

If it didn't come from the top, then why did they Attorney General redefine the definition and treatment of people in US custody? And why would Bush threaten to veto any law that would guarantee anyone in US custody to be treated according to the Geneva Conventions. For me, anyone that makes excuses not to follow those Conventions is lower than garbage!


Bush Defies Military, Congress on Torture
By Marjorie Cohn t r u t h o u t | Perspective Monday 01 August 2005

Bush seemed shocked to learn of torture committed by US forces. But then someone leaked an explosive Department of Justice memorandum that had been written in August 2002. The memo presented a blueprint explaining how interrogators could torture prisoners and everyone in the chain of command could escape criminal liability for war crimes. It said the President was above the law. That memo set the stage for the torture of prisoners in US custody.

...influential members of Congress to propose amendments to a $491 billion defense bill that would prevent the mistreatment of prisoners.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has proposed an amendment to define who is an "enemy combatant" for purposes of detention and military trials of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. At present, Bush claims total discretion to make that determination.

Republican Senator John McCain, a prisoner of war for six years during the Vietnam War, proposes an amendment to set uniform standards for anyone detained by the Defense Department. It would limit interrogation techniques to those contained in the Army field manual, which is currently being revised.

McCain also proposes that all foreign nationals held by the US military be registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross, as required by the Geneva Conventions. This would prevent the holding of "ghost detainees."

The most significant amendment McCain advocates would prohibit the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in US custody, consistent with our obligations under the Convention against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Nevertheless, Bush has threatened to veto the spending bill "if legislation is presented that would restrict the President's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice."

These are Bush's buzz words for opposing any interference with his unfettered authority to order the torture of prisoners in US custody.

Bush persists in ignoring the warnings of our top military leaders, who believe American security is endangered by the harsh interrogation policies. And he threatens to defy Congress as well by opposing amendments that would hold him and his administration accountable for torture and inhuman treatment.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080105I.shtml

 

[Deegan]

If it didn't come from the top, then why did they Attorney General redefine the definition and treatment of people in US custody? And why would Bush threaten to veto any law that would guarantee anyone in US custody to be treated according to the Geneva Conventions. For me, anyone that makes excuses not to follow those Conventions is lower than garbage!


Bush Defies Military, Congress on Torture
By Marjorie Cohn t r u t h o u t | Perspective Monday 01 August 2005

Bush seemed shocked to learn of torture committed by US forces. But then someone leaked an explosive Department of Justice memorandum that had been written in August 2002. The memo presented a blueprint explaining how interrogators could torture prisoners and everyone in the chain of command could escape criminal liability for war crimes. It said the President was above the law. That memo set the stage for the torture of prisoners in US custody.

...influential members of Congress to propose amendments to a $491 billion defense bill that would prevent the mistreatment of prisoners.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has proposed an amendment to define who is an "enemy combatant" for purposes of detention and military trials of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. At present, Bush claims total discretion to make that determination.

Republican Senator John McCain, a prisoner of war for six years during the Vietnam War, proposes an amendment to set uniform standards for anyone detained by the Defense Department. It would limit interrogation techniques to those contained in the Army field manual, which is currently being revised.

McCain also proposes that all foreign nationals held by the US military be registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross, as required by the Geneva Conventions. This would prevent the holding of "ghost detainees."

The most significant amendment McCain advocates would prohibit the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in US custody, consistent with our obligations under the Convention against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Nevertheless, Bush has threatened to veto the spending bill "if legislation is presented that would restrict the President's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice."

These are Bush's buzz words for opposing any interference with his unfettered authority to order the torture of prisoners in US custody.

Bush persists in ignoring the warnings of our top military leaders, who believe American security is endangered by the harsh interrogation policies. And he threatens to defy Congress as well by opposing amendments that would hold him and his administration accountable for torture and inhuman treatment.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080105I.shtml

I have answered this already, but I'll try just one more time.

Terrorists are not covered under the Geneva convention, thus we had to define what we could, and could not do to these people. This is a new situation in which we find ourselves, hence the need to come to a rational conclusion on what is appropriate when handling men without a nation, or a uniform. I have read the terms in which we can handle these prisoners now, and I don't find that it results in torture, nor is it inhumane, IMO.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Deegan:
I have answered this already, but I'll try just one more time.

Terrorists are not covered under the Geneva convention, thus we had to define what we could, and could not do to these people. This is a new situation in which we find ourselves, hence the need to come to a rational conclusion on what is appropriate when handling men without a nation, or a uniform. I have read the terms in which we can handle these prisoners now, and I don't find that it results in torture, nor is it inhumane, IMO.

I understand what your point is. I just don't agree with it.

 

[Deegan]

I understand what your point is. I just don't agree with it.

Fair enough, we will agree to disagree.

 

[Pacridge]

:applaud

Cudos to you both. This site is all about disagreeing with each other in a civil manner.

 

[Middleground]

I have answered this already, but I'll try just one more time.

Terrorists are not covered under the Geneva convention, thus we had to define what we could, and could not do to these people. This is a new situation in which we find ourselves, hence the need to come to a rational conclusion on what is appropriate when handling men without a nation, or a uniform. I have read the terms in which we can handle these prisoners now, and I don't find that it results in torture, nor is it inhumane, IMO.

What's the difference between a captured "terrorist" and a captured enemy soldier?

 

[Pacridge]

What's the difference between a captured "terrorist" and a captured enemy soldier?

One has a country and a uniform?

 

[Middleground]

One has a country and a uniform?

That's it?

 

[Pacridge]

That's it?

It's a pretty big difference isn't it?

 

[Deegan]

It's a pretty big difference isn't it?

I think it is, some may disagree, hell, some have, oh well, ain't life a b**ch.

 

[cnredd]

One has a country and a uniform?

True, but the underlining ramifications of that have more meaning...

If a member of a national armed force becomes a POW, the capturing force SHOULD(under the Geneva Convention) understand that the actions are not being done individually by the captured party, but by the nation that is represented through him.

Whereas terrorists captured ARE working individually(under Geneva Convention terms). There may be a heirarchy to a terrorist organization, but they are NOT recognized by the international community as a legitimate armed force. "Signing up" for a terrorist organization is not legally "signing up".

If I attacked country "A" as a member of a national armed force, I would not be doing so because of a personal disagreement or belief...I may even believe that the enemy I am attacking is correct, but I still have a job to do, so holding me accountable for the attack is wrong...I'm just obeying orders.

But if I personally go to country "A" and attack them as an individual because "I" have a disagreement with that country, then only "I" should be held accountable and not my country of origin. That is what is happening with the terrorists.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by cnredd:
If a member of a national armed force becomes a POW, the capturing force SHOULD(under the Geneva Convention) understand that the actions are not being done individually by the captured party, but by the nation that is represented through him.

Whereas terrorists captured ARE working individually(under Geneva Convention terms). There may be a heirarchy to a terrorist organization, but they are NOT recognized by the international community as a legitimate armed force. "Signing up" for a terrorist organization is not legally "signing up".

Stop playing semantics with peoples lives. You want to talk about the Geneva Convention, well here's a few rules we are breaking that you happen to be defending (whenever your not defaming people):


Excerpts from the World Tribunal on Iraq:

II. Findings and Charges

On the basis of the preceding findings and recalling the Charter of the United Nations and other legal documents quoted in the appendix, the jury has established the following charges.

2. Targeting the civilian population of Iraq and civilian infrastructure, by intentionally directing attacks upon civilians and hospitals, medical centers, residential neighborhoods, electricity stations, and water purification facilities in violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR"), Articles 7(1)(a), 8(2)(a)(i), and 8(2)(b)(i). The complete destruction of the city of Falluja in itself constitutes a glaring example of such crimes.

3. Using disproportionate force and indiscriminate weapon systems, such as cluster munitions, incendiary bombs, depleted uranium (DU), and chemical weapons. Detailed evidence was presented to the Tribunal by expert witnesses that leukemia had risen sharply in children under the age of five residing in those areas which had been targeted by DU weapons.

4. Failing to safeguard the lives of civilians during military activities and during the occupation period thereafter, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Articles 13 and 27, and the ICC Statute, Articles 7 (1)(a) and 8(2)(a)(i). This is evidenced, for example, by "shock and awe" bombing techniques and the conduct of occupying forces at checkpoints.

5. Using deadly violence against peaceful protestors, beginning with, among others, the April 2003 killing of more than a dozen peaceful protestors in Falluja.

6. Imposing punishments without charge or trial, including collective punishment, on the people of Iraq, in violation of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Geneva Conventions, and customary international law requiring due process. Repeated testimonies pointed to "snatch and grab" operations, disappearances, and assassinations.

7. Subjecting Iraqi soldiers and civilians to torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the ICCPR, other treaties and covenants, and customary international law. Degrading treatment includes subjecting Iraqi soldiers and civilians to acts of racial, ethnic, religious, and gender discrimination, as well as denying Iraqi soldiers Prisoner of War status as required by the Geneva Convention. Abundant testimony was provided of unlawful arrests and detentions, without due process of law. Well known and egregious examples occurred in Abu Ghraib prison as well as in Mosul, Camp Bucca, and Basra. The employment of mercenaries and private contractors to carry out torture has served to undermine accountability.

8. Re-writing the laws of a country that has been illegally invaded and occupied, in violation of international covenants on the responsibilities of occupying powers, in order to amass illegal profits (through such measures as Order 39, signed by L. Paul Bremer III for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which allows foreign investors to buy and takeover Iraq's state-owned enterprises and to repatriate 100 percent of their profits and assets at any point) and to control Iraq's oil. Evidence listed a number of corporations that had profited from such transactions.

13. Redefining torture in violation of international law, to allow use of torture and illegal detentions, including holding more than 500 people at Guantánamo Bay without charging them or allowing them any access to legal protection, and using "extraordinary renditions" to send people to torture in other countries known to commit human rights abuses and torture prisoners

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/062705A.shtml

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Stop playing semantics with peoples lives. You want to talk about the Geneva Convention, well here's a few rules we are breaking that you happen to be defending (whenever your not defaming people):


Excerpts from the World Tribunal on Iraq:

II. Findings and Charges

On the basis of the preceding findings and recalling the Charter of the United Nations and other legal documents quoted in the appendix, the jury has established the following charges.

2. Targeting the civilian population of Iraq and civilian infrastructure, by intentionally directing attacks upon civilians and hospitals, medical centers, residential neighborhoods, electricity stations, and water purification facilities in violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR"), Articles 7(1)(a), 8(2)(a)(i), and 8(2)(b)(i). The complete destruction of the city of Falluja in itself constitutes a glaring example of such crimes.

3. Using disproportionate force and indiscriminate weapon systems, such as cluster munitions, incendiary bombs, depleted uranium (DU), and chemical weapons. Detailed evidence was presented to the Tribunal by expert witnesses that leukemia had risen sharply in children under the age of five residing in those areas which had been targeted by DU weapons.

4. Failing to safeguard the lives of civilians during military activities and during the occupation period thereafter, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Articles 13 and 27, and the ICC Statute, Articles 7 (1)(a) and 8(2)(a)(i). This is evidenced, for example, by "shock and awe" bombing techniques and the conduct of occupying forces at checkpoints.

5. Using deadly violence against peaceful protestors, beginning with, among others, the April 2003 killing of more than a dozen peaceful protestors in Falluja.

6. Imposing punishments without charge or trial, including collective punishment, on the people of Iraq, in violation of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Geneva Conventions, and customary international law requiring due process. Repeated testimonies pointed to "snatch and grab" operations, disappearances, and assassinations.

7. Subjecting Iraqi soldiers and civilians to torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the ICCPR, other treaties and covenants, and customary international law. Degrading treatment includes subjecting Iraqi soldiers and civilians to acts of racial, ethnic, religious, and gender discrimination, as well as denying Iraqi soldiers Prisoner of War status as required by the Geneva Convention. Abundant testimony was provided of unlawful arrests and detentions, without due process of law. Well known and egregious examples occurred in Abu Ghraib prison as well as in Mosul, Camp Bucca, and Basra. The employment of mercenaries and private contractors to carry out torture has served to undermine accountability.

8. Re-writing the laws of a country that has been illegally invaded and occupied, in violation of international covenants on the responsibilities of occupying powers, in order to amass illegal profits (through such measures as Order 39, signed by L. Paul Bremer III for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which allows foreign investors to buy and takeover Iraq's state-owned enterprises and to repatriate 100 percent of their profits and assets at any point) and to control Iraq's oil. Evidence listed a number of corporations that had profited from such transactions.

13. Redefining torture in violation of international law, to allow use of torture and illegal detentions, including holding more than 500 people at Guantánamo Bay without charging them or allowing them any access to legal protection, and using "extraordinary renditions" to send people to torture in other countries known to commit human rights abuses and torture prisoners

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/062705A.shtml

I was under the impression that unless you are part of a millitary or an organized millitia you are not covered under the geneva convention. Not to mention Al queada didn't sign the geneva canvention so there not covered. And non of the terrorist who are showing up with C4 did not sign. So they are also not covered under the geneva convention. But if there not going to abide by those rules why should I hamstring my soldiers with pesky rules such as that. You keep on defending those terrorist, Some would say it sounds like sympathy

And these poor souls that are strapping bombs to themselves are te ones targeting cizillians on a daily basis.

 

[cnredd]

I was under the impression that unless you are part of a millitary or an organized millitia you are not covered under the geneva convention. Not to mention Al queada didn't sign the geneva canvention so there not covered. And non of the terrorist who are showing up with C4 did not sign. So they are also not covered under the geneva convention. But if there not going to abide by those rules why should I hamstring my soldiers with pesky rules such as that. You keep on defending those terrorist, Some would say it sounds like sympathy

And these poor souls that are strapping bombs to themselves are te ones targeting cizillians on a daily basis.

Stop confusing Billo with facts...They distort his view from the borg-like truthout.org

I thinks its funny the way he keeps using them as a source...

That's like saying "I think Hillary Clinton is great person...Here is my unbiased source".

www.IthinkHillaryClintonisagreatperson.com

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I was under the impression that unless you are part of a millitary or an organized millitia you are not covered under the geneva convention.

One of the issued raised in what you're responding to is that Iraqi soldiers were being denied POW status.
There is something to be said for the case Mr. Wolfowitz made re some elements of the heterogeneous insurgency:

WOLFOWITZ: By the way, it's not insurgency. An insurgency implies something that rose up afterwards. This is the same enemy that butchered Iraqis for 35 years, that fought us up until the fall of Baghdad and continues to fight afterwards. It was led by Saddam Hussein up until his capture in December. It's been led, in part, by his No. 2 or 3, Izzat Ibrahim al Douri, since then. It's been led by Zarqawi, who was a terrorist working for bin Laden in Afghanistan, who fled to Iraq in 2002. It's not an insurgency, in the sense of an uprising. It is a continuation of the war by people who never quit.
​

It seems there's a case to be made for the elements that are made up of the former Iraqi army deserving some sort of a status under the GC.

 

[cnredd]

One of the issued raised in what you're responding to is that Iraqi soldiers were being denied POW status.
There is something to be said for the case Mr. Wolfowitz made re some elements of the heterogeneous insurgency:

WOLFOWITZ: By the way, it's not insurgency. An insurgency implies something that rose up afterwards. This is the same enemy that butchered Iraqis for 35 years, that fought us up until the fall of Baghdad and continues to fight afterwards. It was led by Saddam Hussein up until his capture in December. It's been led, in part, by his No. 2 or 3, Izzat Ibrahim al Douri, since then. It's been led by Zarqawi, who was a terrorist working for bin Laden in Afghanistan, who fled to Iraq in 2002. It's not an insurgency, in the sense of an uprising. It is a continuation of the war by people who never quit.
​

It seems there's a case to be made for the elements that are made up of the former Iraqi army deserving some sort of a status under the GC.

I'm unclear on that...I would think that, once the leadership of an armed force is gone, that armed force would not be recognized by the international community or Geneva anymore. They would now be continuing the war under their own objectives, and not the objectives of the newly formed Iraqi government. That would make them a rogue band of self-appointed vigilantes fighting against their own government.

What if a group of 58 year old American Vietnam War veterans got together and decided to go back to Vietnam and "finish the job?" They would be fighting under their own beliefs that would be in disagreement of the official US policy...I would consider them "on their own", and not under any Geneva Convention terms.

Am I wrong on this?

 

[Pacridge]

One of the issued raised in what you're responding to is that Iraqi soldiers were being denied POW status.
There is something to be said for the case Mr. Wolfowitz made re some elements of the heterogeneous insurgency:

WOLFOWITZ: By the way, it's not insurgency. An insurgency implies something that rose up afterwards. This is the same enemy that butchered Iraqis for 35 years, that fought us up until the fall of Baghdad and continues to fight afterwards. It was led by Saddam Hussein up until his capture in December. It's been led, in part, by his No. 2 or 3, Izzat Ibrahim al Douri, since then. It's been led by Zarqawi, who was a terrorist working for bin Laden in Afghanistan, who fled to Iraq in 2002. It's not an insurgency, in the sense of an uprising. It is a continuation of the war by people who never quit.
​

It seems there's a case to be made for the elements that are made up of the former Iraqi army deserving some sort of a status under the GC.

That's a good point.

 

[Deegan]

One of the issued raised in what you're responding to is that Iraqi soldiers were being denied POW status.
There is something to be said for the case Mr. Wolfowitz made re some elements of the heterogeneous insurgency:

WOLFOWITZ: By the way, it's not insurgency. An insurgency implies something that rose up afterwards. This is the same enemy that butchered Iraqis for 35 years, that fought us up until the fall of Baghdad and continues to fight afterwards. It was led by Saddam Hussein up until his capture in December. It's been led, in part, by his No. 2 or 3, Izzat Ibrahim al Douri, since then. It's been led by Zarqawi, who was a terrorist working for bin Laden in Afghanistan, who fled to Iraq in 2002. It's not an insurgency, in the sense of an uprising. It is a continuation of the war by people who never quit.
​

It seems there's a case to be made for the elements that are made up of the former Iraqi army deserving some sort of a status under the GC.

If they put on their uniform, come out of their spiderholes, and fight like men of honor and courage......I am sure we could easily find it in our hearts to treat them with the privilage of the G.C.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I'm unclear on that...I would think that, once the leadership of an armed force is gone, that armed force would not be recognized by the international community or Geneva anymore.

That may be. I've not taken a solid look at the particulars involved.

They would now be continuing the war under their own objectives, and not the objectives of the newly formed Iraqi government. That would make them a rogue band of self-appointed vigilantes fighting against their own government.

Well, they would be fighting for the government that was in power before a foreign force established a new regime. Just because a general dies it doesn't mean that the war's over.

That's basically what Wolfowitz is saying when he says "It is a continuation of the war..." The Iraq War is still going on, it has not ended. We're still fighting the Iraqi Army.

What if a group of 58 year old American Vietnam War veterans got together and decided to go back to Vietnam and "finish the job?" They would be fighting under their own beliefs that would be in disagreement of the official US policy...I would consider them "on their own", and not under any Geneva Convention terms.

I would too. But I don't think that situation's all that analgous to the Iraq situation. It differs in several crucial repects. The military personel in Iraq are from the invaded country. Whereas in you scenario the invading country's government is still in power, the troops in question are the invaders, etc.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Calm2Chaos:
I was under the impression that unless you are part of a millitary or an organized millitia you are not covered under the geneva convention. Not to mention Al queada didn't sign the geneva canvention so there not covered. And non of the terrorist who are showing up with C4 did not sign. So they are also not covered under the geneva convention. But if there not going to abide by those rules why should I hamstring my soldiers with pesky rules such as that.

You thought wrong. And it is pretty sick for anyone to justify torture of any kind to anybody. Here's what the International Red Cross has to say about your impression:

Indefinite detention is incompatible with Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. While temporary derogation from this provision is allowed in article 4 ICCPR, such derogation is only possible “in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation” and “to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.” Persons deprived of their liberty are entitled to a prompt trial or release, and in cases of arbitrary detention, they are entitled to compensation. Neither the war on terror nor restrictive immigration policies justify indefinite detention.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList314/EA0FD7A695E60B53C1256FF000525E2C

Originally posted by Calm2Chaos:
You keep on defending those terrorist, Some would say it sounds like sympathy

I'm not defending anyone that engages in terror. I think these psycho's need to be brought to justice. However, I don't think we should do it by acting just like them. When we torture people, were no better than they are. But feel free to listen for those sounds you want to hear. In my case, you need to take out "Sympathy for the Devil" from your CD player and replace with "We Don't Get Fooled Again".

Originally posted by cnredd:
Stop confusing Billo with facts...They distort his view from the borg-like truthout.org

I thinks its funny the way he keeps using them as a source...

That's like saying "I think Hillary Clinton is great person...Here is my unbiased source".

The only thing that is funny, is your opinion of your debating skills. Would you care to explain your issue with truthout.org? Or is it trash day, and your just ramping up.

 

[Binary_Digit]

So what if the Geneva articles don't apply to terrorists and insurgents? SO WHAT? It's a legal technicality, and using that as a loophole to justify immoral acts against human beings completely undermines the spirit of intent behind why the articles were written in the first place. What a disgrace.

If we condone this kind of crap, we are no better than they are. We have effectively stooped to their level. American values are supposed to include due process and innocence until proof of guilt. This is not something that only applies to American citizens, or only to enemies in uniform who report to some legitimate government authority. These values should apply to ALL humans, because ALL humans are born with certain INALIENABLE rights.

We have allowed the terrorists to terrorize us and lead us away from our core values as a civilized nation. We have lost civil liberties because of the Patriot Act, and we have lost credibility in the world as a beacon of human rights because of these prison scandals. I hate to say it, but the terrorists have won a huge battle with this.