Date: 5/12/2009
Transcript
Ron Paul: Dick Cheney is in the news again. He is charging that we are now less safe with the new administration than we were with the last. In some ways he may be right but for a lot different reasons than he thinks.
He’s claiming that the administration is not going to be tough enough on terrorists and not use tough interrogation techniques and therefore we are going to be vulnerable. Of course, Dick Cheney’s argument is that a lot of good information came out of the torture and that we should release all that information.
Of course, he knows that will never be released because it will be argued that it will expose our government to what we’ve been doing even more than this administration wants, so that’s not likely to happen.
But I do think that we’re less safe today, but I think we’re less safe because we haven’t changed our foreign policy. We still have a foreign policy of massive intervention over in the Middle East and as long as we continue with troops in Iraq, occupying and killing people in Afghanistan, and now spreading this war and chasing the Taliban over into Pakistan, there are going to be a lot of people involved that want to do us harm, so yes, I do feel less secure.
This argument on terrorism, I think, is very shortsighted. Cheney’s argument is that we did get a lot of good information. Possibly there was a little bit, but the whole question is could they have gotten that information without sacrificing our principles and the rule of law? Because there are other ways to get information.
Actually, there are ways of getting information without sacrificing our principles and still maintaining the rule of law. Matthew Alexander, an individual that was involved in 300 interrogations in Iraq, found out that it was absolutely unnecessary to use torture.
As a matter of fact, he refused to do it and he was more successful than those who used torture. So to say that we should torture because we might get some information, but it’s rather doubtful, that argument is very, very controversial, but it’s not controversial about whether it’s legal or illegal or not under international law. And besides, two wrongs never make a right.
But the important thing to realize is that our foreign policy has much more to do with our threats and the danger that we are in. Matthew Alexander argues the case that every time you torture somebody and it becomes known throughout the Muslim world, you create more terrorists. So it actually did a lot more harm than good by being exposed to what we’re doing.
So I argue the case, do I agree with Cheney? Yes, we are less safe, but it is because we continue the policies of the previous administration and the violence is escalating. The odds of us leaving Iraq are slim to none. We are building up troops by the tens of thousands in Afghanistan. There are generals now who are arguing the case that there’s not nearly enough. We have a new general taking over in Afghanistan, indicating the administration is not happy with the policies.
So if we want to be safer on the long term, we have to think much more seriously about a change of foreign policy. We are not going to be safer just because we have more torture and think that we’re going to get more information. It’s said that 50-some percent of the American people in this country endorse tough interrogation of terrorists.
Well, that’s a false statement. I mean, when you capture 100 people and one may be a terrorist and you start torturing all of them, the American people wouldn’t support that, and if they were ever offered the opportunity that you can get more information by persuasion in different techniques without sacrificing the rule of law and without resorting to torture, I think 100 percent of the American people would say, “Why would we torture and why would we take that risk and why would we build up more enemies in this manner?”
There is a lot to be said about a non-interventionist foreign policy, a policy designed under our Constitution, one that was advised by our founders, one that would cost us a lot less money.
Instead, whether it’s the Republican administration or the Democratic administration, onward continuously on the same policy, we never change our way. It’s time this country changes its ways. The policy that we run overseas is a major participant in the bankruptcy of this country and the sooner we wake up to this fact, the better for all of us.
- Ron Paul to Congress: Stop The Wars, Stop The Spending Location: House Floor Date: 1/27/2010 Transcript: Ron Paul: I thank you, Madam Speaker. Today...
- Ron Paul: Let’s have the courage to face the truth on torture In his latest column, Ron Paul challenges the current administration to release evidence of torture...
- Ron Paul Opposes $96.7 Billion War Spending & Pandemic Flu Supplemental Bill Date: 5/14/2009 Bill: HR 2346 Transcript Ron Paul: I thank you, Madam Speaker. Today...
dfence why don’t you go and get water boarded by a professional. make a video out of it so that we could see the results after the fact. then lets see if you’ll defend it so
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What a bunch of hipocrites! Your phoney “morality” doesn’t stand up to even a cursory hypothetical analysis. You’re using international law to take our soveriegnty away from us and give it to the very international community you said you despised when it came to NAFTA, the UN, and the WTO. Two faced hypocrites!
In a civilized society it’s ok to incinerate the enemy. It’s ok to disembowel them. It’s ok to blow off their arms and legs. You can stab them in one or both eyes if you want. You can bomb women and children from the air. They can die slow miserable deaths from insufficient medical treatment and infection. Oh, but “torture has no place in a civil society”.
To further demonstrate what a bunch of hipocrites you are, you say that if our armed forces use torture, then it logically follows they will immediately turn those techniques on US citizens! Idiots! They’ve got thermonuclear bombs, enough to destroy us all 100 times over and they don’t use those on US citizens, but we are supposed to believe that if we give them the awesome power of the water board then look out? How stupid are you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What the heck are you talking about dude? No one has said anything even remotely close to “In a civilized society it’s ok to incinerate the enemy. It’s ok to disembowel them. It’s ok to blow off their arms and legs. You can stab them in one or both eyes if you want. You can bomb women and children from the air. They can die slow miserable deaths from insufficient medical treatment and infection.”
Also, no one said we could see torture used on US citizens if a judge were to declare torture legal. Omar Armenteros said such action could lead to torture being used on “law abiding citizens”. Law abiding citizens exist in every country. The implication being that US forces could then use torture on law abiding citizens of countries with which we happen to be at war. I’m no fan of slippery slope arguments. But you could at least address what was actually written and not straw man the argument.
Who has these thermonuclear bombs? I’ve always understood that the US has (by far) the largest nuclear arsenal. Talk about hypocritical!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Might want to brush up on your reading skills, Nate Y.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not really. You’re the one who is twisting words and making assumptions about the beliefs of others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Same input, same output.
A moral decay of our legal system, society, rights and liberties.
If a judge were to declare torture legal in certain circumstances, how long would it be before another judge declares torture legal in other ciscumstances. Furthermore, how long would it be before our government uses torture on law abiding citizens? Especially on this site I would think our ability to imagine the various ways in which government has and continues to abuse its power shows the plausibility of this scenario.
They have already used toture when it was illegal, how easy and tempting would it be to use it once it is legal.
TORTURE HAS NO PLACE IN A CIVIL SOCIETY.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You do your research first. I did say “get permission from a judge”. I would think that implies legality. In other words, change the present law, which is what Bush should have done instead of getting a bunch of Yale lawyers to figure ways around the present law.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I fail to see a significant differnce between getting “a bunch of Yale lawyers to figure ways around the present law” and a judge corrupting that same law.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The hypothetical scenario is nothing more than what the present or previous administration will give us as a cop out for not following the very law that has been established.
What would be the next law they break?
What makes us a civilized people, is the adherence to the laws we establish. Once we break these laws we become no better than the thug or criminal who we seek to torture.
However sad and unfortunate the death of any citizen may be, the loss of those “morals all nice and clean” is the loss of our nation and rule of law. There are plenty of methods avilable to law enforement and intelligence that are not physical torture, do some research.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Allow me to use a hypothetical situation from a movie. A known criminal has buried a young girl alive. She only has one hour of air left. You have the criminal in your custody and you have tried every non-violent way of getting him to tell you where the girl is buried. You can try torture as a last resort. What do you do?
Well, you could keep your morals all nice and clean and allow the girl to die. Then you can legally prosecute the criminal for the girls murder. Everything was done that could have been done. All nice and legal. Now, go tell the little girl’s parents.
Sometimes, though we hate to admit it, we have to do things to protect the innocent. Torture can be regulated the same way that search warrants are obtained. You must go before a judge and obtain legal permission.
The problem with our latest torturing wasn’t that is was unjustifiable but that it was kept secret from the American public and the world. Why hide something as though you are ashamed of what you are doing? It was our president’s duty to protect the citizens of the country from another terrorist attack that could have taken the lives of thousands, including many, many little children. He did what he did and I am happy that he did. I just wish he would have come right out and said so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You can’t use a hypothetical use of torture to prevent a known outcome in order to justify the real life practice of torture because in real life, the outcomes are not given (known).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To answer your hypo question: the intrerigator faces a moral decision about using torture to extract the info…that is “break the law” to save a life. Our courts have 2 methods of dealing with this problem..1)jURY NULLIFICATION AND 2)Presidential pardon.
Most importantly, we must recognize that torture is against the law!! Let our systems of gov’t protect the interragator’s action in this scenario.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
you know what i suspect dfence is a terrorist. So lets begin by taking you right to bare arms and your right of do process. have a team of ten men go to your home in the middle of the night when you and your family are asleep and do some good old fashion rendition. heck i suspect anyone your involved with is a terrorist ass well.so we take you your wife and kids, brother sister, parents, friends. better yet every single person you has ever had any contact with you. oh why take them all hey your no longer a citizen and due process doesn’t apply here. so now i suspect you or someone you know might have some information regarding an imminent attack on the American people. so first we will threaten to hurt your kids to get the information out of you. if that doesn’t work then we will water board your parents to see if they know anything of your plot. better yet you should watch that might persuade you to spill the beans or them either is fine with us. if that isn’t enough we will then tie your brothers, sisters and friends but naked in a cell then bash their heads into a wall. maybe they will be more forth coming with the information we suspect them of having. if that doesn’t work then we will have to do repeat our little exercise a couple of hundred times. remember homeland security is our top priority and if your suspected of a plot. thanks to your justifications above i can target anyone i want including you and your.
GUESS WHAT DFENCE IM GOING TO REPORT YOU TO DHS OF BEING A TERRORIST. GOOD LUCK:-)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Such high sounding morals when you’re hiding behind an agreement that our enemy did not sign and does not observe. Why don’t you save your high sounding morals for Nick Berg’s family. Maybe you could arrange to have the beheading video playing while you’re impressing them with the lofty morality you’re enforcing on them at the point of your gun.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of
International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva
from 21 April to 12 August, 1949
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
MORALITY IS ABOUT MORE THAN JUST WINNING. WHEN WE LOSE OUR MORALS WE LOSE THE BATTLE BEFORE IT HAS EVEN BEGUN.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
When I re-read the Geneva Convention it was very specific about who was covered in the treaty. I forget the words used but basically combatants needed to stand-out from others. Hiding in civilian clothes or the uniforms of other nations was not allowed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Should the UN pundits use the word “torture” to include temporary or non-physical pain?
What the MSM was calling torture wasn’t what was colloquially defined as torture; eyeballs were not used as ashtrays, fingers were not broken one at a time, or a battery charger was connected to one’s genitals. I’m sure that would have close to zero backing by both the citizenship and soldiers.
Calling what we did “torture” was not very honest and no less than an instance of Orwellian double-speak. Maybe I should call it torture and say it has been outlawed in international courts. Would the UN abide by my word or would they continue to support the use of “torture”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well then it’s obvious what must be done. You must simply list all the cruel acts you can think of and let us know which ones are torture and which ones aren’t. Piece of cake.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Or maybe define the dividing line between cruel acts and torture much more concisely. What is defined as unacceptable torture to some is simply uncomfortable or even cruel actions to another.
On a less serious note; I used to have a neighbor who “tortured” me with Metalica most days of the week. Since the city wouldn’t do anything maybe I should have called the UN to get him to turn his speakers down. But then what would they say about my playing Bach?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So if your wife and son were in a convoy headed across Iraq and you had in your custody a person who would very likely know where an improvised explosive device was and how it was to be triggered along their route, you would not resort to torture to get that information? You would let your wife and son be killed rather than “stoop” to such methods? I’d torture that bastard in a hot second and make no apologies for it. In fact, I’d kill you if you tried to stop me. It’s easy to sit in a comfortable chair and pontificate about how others should live. It’s another thing to walk in their shoes. A true libertarian would allow our soldiers the FREEDOM to do whatever it takes to win, instead of imposing false morality on them via trumped up laws that don’t exist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In your hypothetical wife/son convoy across Iraq example, how did they gather all the prior intelligence? That is, how do they know there is an IED on the route? How do they know this person (the would be torture victim) is very likely to know where the IED is located and how it would be triggered? Seems a little shaky.
Moving on, the no true Scotsman fallacy on Ronpaul.com! That thing pretty much always comes up during any intellectual debate.
Once we’ve declared war (in line with the Constitution, of course) dropping a bunch of nuclear bombs and completely obliterating our enemy fits quite nicely with my “true libertarian” ethic of doing “whatever it takes to win”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
violence only leads to more violence
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I disagree.
How about the civil war, for just one of many, examples.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“When you capture a 100 people with 1 being a terrorist and you torture them all, the american people wouldnt support that”.
I agree with everything Ron Paul is saying except that. A lot of americans really are stupid and arrogant. Only 2% voted for Dr Paul yet nearly 10 times more voted for Mccain who even admitted in the election campaigns he wanted to escalate foreign policy in other countries and basically supported wars.
I doubt most Americans really care what harm comes to non-americans. We are bombing the hell out of Pakistan with Obama as president, killing tons of innocent women and children, yet nobody even turns thier head to look.
The outlook is grim but i do hope for the best!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So what law covers interrogation of foreign prisoners on a foreign battlefield? Are they granted Constitutional rights based on the fact that they’re fighting US forces? Should we only deprive them of their lives after due process? That’s not the way war works. War is about winning. Once we go to war, it should be Constitutionally declared, but once we go to war we should go to war for one reason and one reason only. TO WIN. To do any less does not honor the sacrifices of our soldiers, it mocks them. The point of war is not to demonstrate any superiority of race, ethics, religion, or whatever. The purpose of war is to win. Losers are relegated to the trash heap of history.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
thats what makes wars soo glorious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.”
General William Tecumseh Sherman
At least he was honest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0