# American King George II wants MORE private info ...



## shesulsa (Sep 14, 2006)

> In the basement conference room in which House Republicans meet each week, Bush was expected to ask for support for two key pieces of legislation he says are crucial to preventing terrorist attacks. One would meet CIA demands that Congress reinterpret the nations treaty obligations to allow tougher interrogations of detainees, but its snagged in the Senate between the leadership and a trio of powerful Republicans.
> 
> At nearly the same time Bush meets with House Republicans, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on Thursday was asking his panel to finish an alternative to the White House plan to prosecute terror suspects and redefine acts that constitute war crimes.
> 
> ...


Full Article

Anybody got tea (or something else) we can dump?


----------



## crushing (Sep 14, 2006)

shesulsa said:


> Full Article
> 
> Anybody got tea (or something else) we can dump?


 
Letters, letters, try a different letter.  Don't dump 'T', dump the the letter three after.


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 14, 2006)

> In the basement conference room in which House Republicans meet each week, Bush was expected to ask for support for two key pieces of legislation he says are crucial to preventing terrorist attacks. One would meet CIA demands that Congress reinterpret the nations treaty obligations to allow tougher interrogations of detainees, but its snagged in the Senate between the leadership and a trio of powerful Republicans.



I'd like to see what those "tougher" interrogations are. How do they compare with interrogations we perform on regular criminals here in the US? Say someone murders a senator. How would they be interrogated? What treaties are they refering to? Does Geneva convention even apply, since they are technically not a militia of a foreign body?



> At nearly the same time Bush meets with House Republicans, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on Thursday was asking his panel to finish an alternative to the White House plan to prosecute terror suspects and redefine acts that constitute war crimes.


Goes back to first question. Does Geneva apply? We are dealing with something relatively new here, so it stands to reason that new interpretations/laws might be required. We don't have a ton of experience with terrorist flying planes into our buildings or threatening/planning to kill thousands/millions. Relatively unexplored territory.



> Warner believes the administration proposal would lower the standard for the treatment of prisoners, potentially putting U.S. troops at risk should other countries retaliate.


Still, I'd like to understand whats being changed before I jump to conclusions. I'd also like a clear definition of what currently defines "torture" vs what is going to define "torture".



			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> Anybody got tea (or something else) we can dump?



I personally like tea. I'll wait until I understand what is happening before I throw my favorite drink overboard.

I'd also like things to change focus some times. This has always ticked me off. We get so excited about some prisoners that have lights turned on, or music played loudly or some other form of "torture". Have we forgotten what these guys have done? Do you still remember 9/11 and other acts that have been prevented by this horrendous "torture" and by tapping international phone calls to/from known terrorist or associates of terrorists? There is a reason we have these changes happening. There are about 3000 of them. I prefer for that number to not get much higher.

Am I advocating barbaric torture? Is Bush? Lets see what he is saying before we jump to those conclusions.


----------



## Elayna (Sep 14, 2006)

I put forth a question...

If there was a person who had kidnapped a loved one(a daughter, a wife, a mother, a son,) and the police arrested him and he refused to tell you where they were, but you knew they were still alive what methods would you resort to to find your loved one again??

I dont support barbaric behavior in all circumstances.  I believe that first we must exhaust all other options before resorting to such "extreme" measures as torture.  Such as offering freedom to them and so on.  But, if they refused no matter what and they still held the lives of people in their hands I would resort to "extreme" measures.

I have a son and I can gaurentee you, if anyone ever took him from me and they wouldnt tell me where he was or anything like that, after I tried to offer the criminal freedom or whatever...I would rip him to pieces slowly until he told me where my child was.  End of story.

If someone is asking for money or whatever I would give it. If they want to be let go and in return they give me my child I would give it.  IF they wanted me in return for my child I would give it.    But if they refuse to give me back what is mine and they stole from me, my child....I would.....

The same would apply to terrorist who were hurting hundreds of people and they knew something to stop it and knew something that would help not only us but others bring peace to the land.  Of course only after all other options had been exhausted.

Soo.....That is my view.  Harsh yes, but that of a mother.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 14, 2006)

I am also a mother and I have learned to be careful about saying things like ... 





			
				Elayna said:
			
		

> "I would rip him to pieces slowly until he told me where my child was.  End of story."


Because, you see, it's not the end of the story.  It's vigilantism.  What would I do if my children were abducted?  I would exhaust all possibilities.  My mother went missing for a month and my autistic teen for over an hour.  I know what it's like to repress every primal urge within me and pursue avenues that actually LED me to them.

When we allow our emotions to rule our actions, we become primal, animalistic, savage ... we don the behaviors that we so desperately and haughtily assign to terrorist organizations and evil regimes.  I am of the opinion that _in fighting the enemy that one must take care not to become like the enemy.

:asian:
_


----------



## elder999 (Sep 14, 2006)

Elayna said:


> I put forth a question...
> 
> If there was a person who had kidnapped a loved one(a daughter, a wife, a mother, a son,) and the police arrested him and he refused to tell you where they were, but you knew they were still alive what methods would you resort to to find your loved one again??
> 
> ...


 
Harsh and inefficient:according to the CIA director and a host of other authorities,   _torture does not work._

As for the electronic intelligence-while I despise it, it's been a fait accompli for quite some time now.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 14, 2006)

shesulsa said:


> Full Article
> 
> Anybody got tea (or something else) we can dump?



While this country is used to non-violent revolutions ever four years, this country is headed towards another "Tea" party. 

While I support a recent judge who ruled that the phone tapping was not legal for the Homeland Security and other offices, the Judge did not quote proper legal precedence or even the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, so it eventually will be overturned based upon poorly written decree. 

Yet it was the right thing to do given our current state of the U.S. Constitution. What I believe is the problem is the U.S. Supreme Court which is on teh extended leave from June until the First Monday in October and are appointed for life, so they have lots of power at their hands to use, but in not using it they are indirectly supporting the problems. The reason they are three branches of the Governement was for balance. Over the last few decades the Executive Branch no longer needs the approval of the Congressional Branch to move troops into warfare. Oh we call it warfare year later. It is now called the Iraqi War by many but while it occurred it was called ODS or Operation Desert Shield/Storm. 

So, I think someone on the U.S. Supreme Court should stand up state that many of the Freedom Acts are in violation of our current U.S. Constitution. Now this does not mean that these acts cannot stand, it just means that the proper forms and procedures must be followed to modify the Constitution. This means the people get to vote on these actions or that their representatives did do it. 

Right now there are laws in place that are against the U.S. Constitution, but most people are willing to accept this because they are not terrorists and do not break the law. Eventually though the terrorists will be gone and the police state will still be rolling, and they will continue to find someone to have the people be afraid of. Keep the people afraid or entertained and feed (* The Barbarians or the Arenas and the daily supplements of bread *) and one can do lots of things the later wonder why or how the people allowed it.

The balance is not there, and it should be restored.


----------



## tradrockrat (Sep 14, 2006)

You know what's funny?  While I am much closer to Elaynas way of thinking here, I think it's high time for another Tea party.  This bloated government needs to be taken down a peg or three and while I really don't give **** if they tear each and every prisoner to peices one inch at a time, I do care about our civil liberties and freedoms.  Voting out George will not get rid of the phone taps, patriot act, Rico act, etc.

King George?  Scary.

Queen Hillary?  Terrifying beyond belief.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 14, 2006)

I am reading Hubris. 

In the book, the authors related how an FBI interrogator was working with a Mr. al-Libi. They tell how the interrogator and Mr. al-Libi discussed religious beliefs. They prayed together. They talked. Over a period of weeks, the interrogator was able to gather quite a bit of useful information. 

Then, someone in the CIA thought it might be better, that they might gain more information, if there was a bit more stress in the interrogations. The CIA took custody of Mr. al-Libi. The CIA rendered Mr. al Libi to Egypt. Suddenly, there was more information, about how the Iraqi Government had trained al Qaeda operatives in use of Chemical and Biological weapons. 

These claims made it into Presidential speeches. These claims made it into Vice Presidential appearances on Meet the Press. 

These claims were made up by Mr. al-Libi to meet the demands of his interrogators. After being released from CIA custody, he recanted on these claims. 

Ignore these facts, if they don't fit your paradigm. 

* * * * * 

I am so very proud that Senators Warner, McCain and Graham. Today, they placed the requirements of the military and the nation above the requirements of the President. 

My fear, is that when the two bills reach conference, the demands of these Republican Senators will be swept away. This is why the Filibuster rule must not be tampered with. 

But for today, 'A Tip of the Hat' to these Senators with whom I seldom agree.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 14, 2006)

"Interrogation" to one political agenda becomes "torture", and vice versa. Label it "torture" and it becomes BAD. Call it "interrogation" and thats not so bad.

Lets hear what these "techniques" are before we throw the terrorists out with the tea water.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 14, 2006)

http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/94/3171/2005-12-13.asp?wid=94&nid=3171



> Jack Cloonan, former FBI agent and current ABC News commentator, believes that torture is anathema to basic American values and should not be condoned or used under any circumstances. He believes that our Founding Fathers had it right and that freedom and liberty are more important than security. He also believes that torture as a way of getting information does not work because people will say anything just to stop the torture.
> 
> Neil Livingston, terrorism expert and another ABC News commentator, believes the opposite. He agrees that while our Founding Fathers were correct in their desire to protect freedom and liberty, today we do not live in those simple times and we must take certain actions to protect ourselves that would be unthinkable 230 years ago. When there are terrorists like al Qaeda that have sworn to destroy our country, our culture, our religion, and our remaining freedoms, and to enslave all non-Muslims into a sub-class as part of their world Islamic caliphate, or at least those unfortunate enough to have survived the sword after the purge. Livingston believes torture does work to obtain time-critical information.
> 
> ...



Then again our governmant had 100's of Taliban leaders in their sights this week but didnt blast em because they were in a cemetary. So this whole topic seems kind of odd put up next to that.


----------



## Kacey (Sep 14, 2006)

I think that Shesulsa has the right of it:


shesulsa said:


> _in fighting the enemy that one must take care not to become like the enemy._


To often, the only justification is that the ends justify the means - but as others have stated, people who are being tortured will say _anything_ if they think it will stop the torture - therefore, anything they say is suspect.    If the interrogator makes an emotional connection with the prisoner, and convinces the prisoner to provide meaningful information through coercion rather than pain - like victims of kidnapping who come to identify with their kidnappers, a phenomenon commonly referred to as the Stockholm Syndrome, or Stockholm Effect, prisoners can come to identify with their jailers, and to sympathize with their aim - and therefore can be convinced to provide meaningful information.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 14, 2006)

Maybe your right, but its still useless in the face of an immediate threat.

A smart interrogator will have background and corroborating intelligence from other interrogations to verify if what he is being told is true. Are CIA aents so poorly trained that they wouldnt be prepared for lies?


----------



## elder999 (Sep 14, 2006)

> A realistic terror scenario might look something like this: Intelligence reports have identified a dirty bomb target as New York City, always a favorite al Qaeda target, with the bomb scheduled to be detonated in three days. Four terror suspects have been identified and detained for questioning based on USA Patriot Act financial collections and from National Security Agency communications intercepts.
> 
> There are two possible approaches to this scenario. Should we use all means possible, to include torture, to identify the location of the nuclear-contaminated dirty bomb and who will detonate it in order to prevent the detonation (the Livingston method)? Or, should we provide legal counsel to the detainees to ensure the terrorists&#8217; rights are not violated and to question them about the bomb, perhaps even offering them a plea bargain if they are willing to testify against their cohorts and to provide the location of the bomb and who will detonate it (the Cloonan method)? Personally, I vote for the method number one. Although method number two may be desirable in some ways, we do not have enough time to prevent bomb detonation and the subsequent loss of life, property, let alone NYC being this nation&#8217;s financial capitol.


 
Actually, this is a scenario I&#8217;m more than a little familiar with-neither approach would work worth a damn, torture or protecting their rights, and there is at the very least a third, more likely to succeed method that I&#8217;m not even going to get into here&#8230;. although, I guess I could just ask what you think a man is likely to say if he wakes up thinking he's died and gone to heaven, and Allah himself wants to chat with him.....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 14, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> "Interrogation" to one political agenda becomes "torture", and vice versa. Label it "torture" and it becomes BAD. Call it "interrogation" and thats not so bad.
> 
> Lets hear what these "techniques" are before we throw the terrorists out with the tea water.


But, they can't tell you this as it might let the "bad guys" train to resist them.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 15, 2006)

shesulsa said:


> When we allow our emotions to rule our actions, we become primal, animalistic, savage ... we don the behaviors that we so desperately and haughtily assign to terrorist organizations and evil regimes.  I am of the opinion that _in fighting the enemy that one must take care not to* become like the enemy.*
> :asian:
> _


Basically a "good" terrorist isn't going to say squat and hope that you will kill him so he can obtain heaven with Allah and his alloted 70 virgins. He's not going to spoil the "fun" by telling you when and where an attack is going to be made. So really it isn't going to work and you can't always 100% guarantee the accuracy of information gathered under duress, or even chemical pursuasion. 
Shesulsa is correct that we must be careful not to become like our enemies when fighting them. We are a civilized nation are we not? We are the envy of the world for our freedoms? 
While we should in circumstances met out punishment to match the justice equal to the crime. Torturing someone and leaving them alive to get information that you shouldn't completely trust to begin with ... There's a fine line here.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 15, 2006)

First ... we also need to recognize Senator Collins (R-ME) for voting with Senators Warner, McCain and Graham - which is against the leader of the party, President Bush.

I think that the former three senators might have had much more realpolitick concerns when voting the way they did. While it is a nice idea to stick to the moral high ground, to ensure that we do not transfigure into that which we are fight, and to honor the principles on which the country was founded, I think it is far more likely that these veterans understand the true cost of the Presidents legislation.

The true cost would be to endanger any service man or women that might be captured on the battlefield; this is the essence of those little yellow ribbons on the back of your cars; Support the Troops. Guarantee for them the best protections available by law as they undertake the tasks that we, left behind, are unable or unwilling to undertake. Ensure the protections of Geneva to those who serve. 

I'm not sure why ... but I guess I just kind of get the sense, that when we are taking about treatment of prisoners of war (enemy combatants - whatever), Senator McCain, for some reason, just has a bit more credibility than either Veep Cheney or President Bush. I wonder why I feel that way.


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 15, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> The true cost would be to endanger any service man or women that might be captured on the battlefield; this is the essence of those little yellow ribbons on the back of your cars; Support the Troops. Guarantee for them the best protections available by law as they undertake the tasks that we, left behind, are unable or unwilling to undertake. Ensure the protections of Geneva to those who serve.



That thinking was and is valid when dealing with the battles that happend in Europe when the Geneva convention was developed. Every nation signed it, they followed it and were assured that their own soldiers would be treated fairly. Instead of wholesale slaughter fighting to the last man, troops would surrender and be released to help out after the war because they knew they would not be abused.

This is not the situation we face in the battles American soldiers are involved in now. 

No matter what we do or what agreements we abide by, they will continue to slowly saw the heads off of people they capture after long periods of torture.

If you go through SERE (Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape) training in the military you will probably be subject to many of the things we do not use on enemy prisoners. Because it is a given fact that they will probably be used on you if you are captured- Geneva convention or no.

I think that believing that there is anything we can do to get our soldiers that  are captured by Al- Quaeda treated with anything other than torture is very, very hopefull thinking.


----------



## Elayna (Sep 15, 2006)

Im really sorry that you guys believe that I would resort to violence on a whim.  That is why I said over and over, after every avenue was exhausted I would yes resort to physicall violence IF and only IF i knew that they knew where my child was, or any of my family memebers and actually any person in general.
Im not saying if I just had a hunch, but if they say, 
Oh Yea I know where they are but Im not telling you even though you have offered me freedom, money or whatever else.  Then yes I would do what I had to do to get that person back.  Especially if it was my child.   I value human life, even that of a criminal.   But...I will not hesitate if they are not willing to cooperate.
I think everyone in any country would do the same. 
And believe me, I know what it is to resist an animal urge not to kill someone.  I have had several stalkers, and I could have killed one of them. I was 4 months pregnant when me and my husband found a stalker watching us through the blinds. My husband chased after him and had the opportunity to kill him, but he didnt.  I had the opportunity to kill a man that beat me, but I didnt.  So I understand resisting those urges. I am not an animal. I respect life.   But if someone is not willing to give it...then something must be done.

I hope that you dont accuse me again of being animalistic, because yes I do take offense.
If I knew one person held the key to saving one or hundred people, and they were not willing to cooperate even when I was willing to give them anything they wanted, even my own life, then yes .....I would do what was needed.
Soo....


As far as taping our phones I dont think the government should be able to do that whenever they want. They should be required to get a warrant and show proof that someone might be a threat to national security.  Not just snoop into our buisness whenever they feel like it.
And I do not support amending the Geneva Convention.  As our troops would be in danger as well.  And until a compromise can be found were our troops would not suffer anymore then they already do I do not support amending it.  But making rules for "interrogation" in our own country in another matter.
As far as having a "Tea" party, I do believe that unless people learn to find common ground and some changes are made in our government it will happen again.  
I am even afraid that because we can not agree on anything that we will have another civil war. That is not good.
That is what we all need to think about. Not just the "Tea" party, but in the end, the Civil war it might cause.
Anyways..
My apologies to those who found my views animalistic, but...we do what we must when we have no way out.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 15, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> That thinking was and is valid when dealing with the battles that happend in Europe when the Geneva convention was developed. Every nation signed it, they followed it and were assured that their own soldiers would be treated fairly. Instead of wholesale slaughter fighting to the last man, troops would surrender and be released to help out after the war because they knew they would not be abused.
> 
> This is not the situation we face in the battles American soldiers are involved in now.


 
Exactly. It's like playing a football game where only one side has to play by the rules and/or take penalties. Look Im not "for" pulling out fingernails, cutting off toes or burning out eyeballs or anything like that, but some of these bleeding hearts are calling leaving lights on, changing feeding times and making people stand/sit uncomfortably for a long time "torture" and thats plain crazy IMO.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 15, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Exactly. It's like playing a football game where only one side has to play by the rules and/or take penalties. Look Im not "for" pulling out fingernails, cutting off toes or burning out eyeballs or anything like that, but some of these bleeding hearts are calling leaving lights on, changing feeding times and making people stand/sit uncomfortably for a long time "torture" and thats plain crazy IMO.


 
So, in other words....

It's okay to do it because the evil terrorists did it first. 

Genius!! Just become like our anarchic, law-snubbing, homocidal enemies!! That'll show 'em real "democracy"!!!

Or, y'know, you could stop taking pages from Machievelli's and Stalin's playbooks and realize that it is the fact we actually abide the laws we agree to that separates us from our enemies.

Oh, but I forgot. The ends justifies the means. Anything else is "crazy", right??

Good friggin' grief.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 15, 2006)

This is more about "politics" than ethics. As if we are to believe the CIA was "nicer and gentler" during the Clinton administration. Right. If Georgie said we should give these guys hookers and steak dinners to get them to talk, some people would find an issue with it. Were arguing about "torture" of prisoners without even knowing what these interrogation techniques are. "If George wants it it MUST be something like flaying them alive with dull kitchen knives". So we all divide along our party biases and argue about something we have no knowledge of.

This is all about definition of terms. Make a guy sitting in a chair with short front legs "torture" and whats next? Using harsh language?

If my gvt lets another 9/11 happen and it was discovered that we could have found out about it but for some prisoners attorney refusing to let us talk to him, than our gvt has failed us. These guys arent criminals like the corner drug dealer and us thinking they should be treated the same is going to result in blood.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 15, 2006)

BTW when was the last time we EVER had an enemy treat our captured servicemen as humanely as we treated theirs? The Germans in WWII? Theres some pretty nasty stories from that era too. While we brought ours back to the states and even let them out on "pass" from the camps from time to time. Prisoners at Ft. Drum NY were allowed to go into town to watch movies.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 15, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> This is more about "politics" than ethics.


 
To you and your ilk, maybe. Not to me.

If Clinton did it, it was wrong. If Lincoln did it, it was wrong. If Washington did it, it was wrong. I really don't care who did it, as it is a fundamental betrayal of our country's principles.

My background is in developmental psychology. The "well, he did it first!" line of argument is an interesting one, as it is the kind of moral reasoning (a la Kohlbergian schemes) that one would expect from a grade school student. Personally, I'd like to think that most adults are somewhat more ethically mature than your average ten year old, but I could be wrong.

Our country was founded on postconventional moral principles, the assumption that there are certain universal values and humanistic notions that apply to all people. The kind of rationale you are describing is closer to how Osama bin Laden thinks than how Thomas Jefferson thought. Remember that.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 15, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> BTW when was the last time we EVER had an enemy treat our captured servicemen as humanely as we treated theirs?


 
Perhaps I didn't make my previous post clear. I shall clarify.

I don't care _who_ does it or _when_ they do it. Unethical practices like torture and slavery don't become okey-dokey just because it has historical precedent. This is an Appeal to Tradition, plain and simple.


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 15, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Exactly. It's like playing a football game where only one side has to play by the rules and/or take penalties. Look Im not "for" pulling out fingernails, cutting off toes or burning out eyeballs or anything like that, but some of these bleeding hearts are calling leaving lights on, changing feeding times and making people stand/sit uncomfortably for a long time "torture" and thats plain crazy IMO.



Well, you see you have fallen into the trap that some people have laid out.

Take a look at what is being discussed. It is not things like attaching electrodes to people's gonads. It is not even slapping people around.

What we are talking about is the same type of thing that we make our own soldiers go through as part of normal training. There are at least two people who passed US Army Ranger training on MartialTalk. You want to talk to _them_ about sleep deprivation????

These are not things that you lay out and threaten to do unless people talk. When they happen to you, you are not crippled for life. The martial artists in this discussion go through rougher treatment every week and get more bruises than these guys ever will in US custody. But you are not in your best condition to play games with the interogator. You slip up. You make mistakes. _You reveal information that you did not intend to!!!!_

That is why the interogators want to be able to use these tactics. They do not frighten people and are not torture like they have been made out to be. But they do make people make mistakes, lower their guard and reveal information that they would not if they were totally rested and at the top of their game.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 15, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Well, you see you have fallen into the trap that some people have laid out.
> 
> Take a look at what is being discussed. It is not things like attaching electrodes to people's gonads. It is not even slapping people around.
> 
> ...


 
Don Roley,

What evidence do you offer that what the CIA extrodinary methods are not torture?

You claim it is not electrocution. But what evidence do you have for that? You claim that it is only loud noise and uncomfortable positions, but what evidence do you have for that? 

How do you know it is not castration, chopping off fingers, pulling out teeth, burning eyeballs? Where is your evidence that in secret locations around the globe, the CIA is not doing these things, and worse? 

Why are people in our custody being transferred to Egypt and Moracco? 

For 60 years, the Geneva Conventions have been a standard against which all countries are measured (Except for the United States - Apparently, Mr. Snow stated yesterday we have never been subject to the Geneva Conventions). For 60 years, they have not needed to be 'clarified'. 

What the President is asking for is the authorization to torture people in custody. - He gave himself that wiggle room earlier this year with a signing statement - And he continues to demand that congress grant him that authority now - before the election, under pressure of election, not with time for reasonable thought and discussion.  (We has this same pressure four years ago - see Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq).

The President is fighting for the right to torture whomever he feels needs to be tortured. Call it what it is. 

And on this issue .... I'm going to trust soldiers who actually showed up for service, and not just for dentist appointments. 

The gall of this administration to claim that Colin Powell is "confused". 

The gall of this adminsistration to claim that Senator McCain is "confused" on the subject of torture.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 15, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> The gall of this administration to claim that Colin Powell is "confused".
> 
> The gall of this adminsistration to claim that Senator McCain is "confused" on the subject of torture.


 

Yah, I'd say the fact that Senator McCain and Colin Powell are in opposition to the President's desires speaks volumes.


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 16, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Don Roley,
> 
> What evidence do you offer that what the CIA extrodinary methods are not torture?



What proof do you have that they are?

I am going by the descriptions of the methods being discussed and that the military has been accused of. 

I am not willing to start from the assumption that the US goverment eats babies and then try to argrue that they do not. If there is some valid proof that the US military does things, then I will look at them. Otherwise I feel we will be right back into the conspiracy theory type of argument where we have to prove that what is being accused _is not_ the proof instead of asking for proof of the accusations.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 16, 2006)

And are you then willing to ignore death certificates for detained prisoners that list the cause of death "Homicide"?

Throughout the invasion and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, detainees have been dying while in American Custody. Early official findings of Homicide were found in Afghanistan in December 2002.

And these are the prisoners we know about .... There are still prisoners that we don't know exist. The CIA black sites program remains in operation.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 16, 2006)

In 1976 two CIA programs leaked to the public.  MKULTRA, MKDELTA and Project MONARCH were programs that tested mind control and _torture techniques on American citizens_.  These programs combined physical, mental, and sexual torture with a number of drugs that were designed to bring the person to various states of consciousness.

According to the documents obtained, these program had been going on for 25 years and involved 1000s of people.

Americans everywhere were shocked and they demanded that Congress shut this stuff down (Ted Kennedy actually spearheaded this effort).  The CIA made a big show that they were complying, but instead moved the program to Canada...with the permission of the Canadian government, btw.  In 1978, the Canadian people found out that this was happening and forced the people who were doing this out of their country.

Did the CIA move these programs to yet another country?  Are they using the techniques that _they practiced on American citizens_ to obtain the information?  If so, then the detainees are being fed a panalopy of drugs while being beaten, raped, sleep deprived, and whatever other god aweful thing these people cooked up in the last 28 years.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 16, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Otherwise I feel we will be right back into the conspiracy theory type of argument where we have to prove that what is being accused _is not_ the proof instead of asking for proof of the accusations.


 
Here we go.


----------



## Fu_Bag (Sep 16, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> What proof do you have that they are?
> 
> I am going by the descriptions of the methods being discussed and that the military has been accused of.
> 
> I am not willing to start from the assumption that the US goverment eats babies and then try to argrue that they do not. If there is some valid proof that the US military does things, then I will look at them. Otherwise I feel we will be right back into the conspiracy theory type of argument where we have to prove that what is being accused _is not_ the proof instead of asking for proof of the accusations.


 

It's a sad, but known, fact that Aliens can make you do some pretty bad things.  The U.S. Government isn't actually eating babies.  They're actually eating, oddly enough, a baby-shaped delicacy from the planet Zganorfruock where the Alien controllers originate from.   

I hope this clears up the confusion.  

Fu Bag


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 16, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> And are you then willing to ignore death certificates for detained prisoners that list the cause of death "Homicide"?
> 
> Throughout the invasion and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, detainees have been dying while in American Custody. Early official findings of Homicide were found in Afghanistan in December 2002.



Hoimicide is when one person kills another.

A prisoner that eventually succumbs to the wounds he gained prior to being  captured would be dead by homicide.

Do you know that there is murder and torture going on? Do you have proof?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 16, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Hoimicide is when one person kills another.
> 
> A prisoner that eventually succumbs to the wounds he gained prior to being captured would be dead by homicide.
> 
> Do you know that there is murder and torture going on? Do you have proof?


 
Man, what planet have you been living on? Fox? 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/19/soldiers.charged/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1801415,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/i...tml?ex=1158552000&en=eb8409e53ddb2ba0&ei=5070

http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/afghan/news-tortureafghan.html

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n27.shtml

There have been numerous reports of United States Service members  killing people in their custody. These reports often include what Rush Limbaugh might describe as 'frat boy pranks' ... you know, violations of Article III of the Geneva Conventions, you know, the law of the land. 

Now, these reports are taking place in your run-of-the-mill army detention facilities ... Do you really think the secret - hidden - CIA operated detention facilities --- you know, the ones the Red Cross can't visit --- I'm pretty sure that's a violation of some law, or another too --- are operated more like Club Med? 

Why is it that when someone like former JAG officer, now Senator, Graham says we can't change the rules ... you argue for it? 

Why is it when a former four star General, a former Secretary of State, like Colin Powell, says we have to honor Geneva, you argue against him? 

Why is when former POW John McCain says the law says we don't torture, and the President issues a signing statement saying he is free to disregard, and re-write the law he just signed, you sign with the guy who deserted his military service, and not the guy who was a prisoner for five years? 

Why is that a World War II Navy Veteran can argue against what the President is Proposing, and you can disagree with him?




Of course, all this may just be a distraction ... don't look at Iraq. Please don't look at the incredible failure of leadership. The Greatest Military Force ever assembled has become a broken police force, unable to prevent the slaughter of 100 people a day, right under their noses. It took less than four years of incompetent leadership to destroy the greatest military fighting force ever assembled. Four years of unwavering, unquestioning motion in the wrong direction; unable to secure an area the size of California. 

George W. Bush can't recognize that he has built his house of flammible material, and set it afire from within. 

He is the ultimate failure of Commander in Chief. Unable to listen to dissent. Unable to recognize failing policies. Unable to make a change. 

A Disaster, that is destroying the country. Once a beacon of liberty, we are now the country that wants to re-write the Geneva Conventions.


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 16, 2006)

The first link you posted was to CNN and read as follows,



> Pentagon sources told CNN the soldiers claimed the prisoners were attempting to flee at the time.
> 
> The three soldiers have been identified as Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard, Pfc. Corey Claggett and Spc. William B. Hunsacker of the 101st Airborne's 3rd Brigade Combat Team, the military said.
> 
> All three face charges of murder, attempted murder and conspiracy in connection with the prisoners' deaths.



So, these guys seem to have killed a prisoner and are being charged with murder for it.

It kind of disputes the idea that the military is killing prisoners as an official part of its interogations if they are charging people with murder.

There  has been abuses of prisoners, not only in the military- but in the American penal system. When these abuses are brought to light, the people responsible are punished. So you can't say that these are officially sanctioned acts or part of the official way of doing things.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 16, 2006)

> I'm going to trust soldiers who actually showed up for service, and not just for dentist appointments.



michaeledward, I'm curious about the above statement that you made, being a former soldier myself who went through some of the training that Don has mentioned.  What soldiers just show up to dental appointments?  Sure, there are REMFs and pogues, but even they have jobs to do.

One I've noticed, back when I was in, sleep deprivation wasn't considered torture. It was almost a matter of course even.  But it seems to be now.  Why has that changed?

Jeff


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 16, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> michaeledward, I'm curious about the above statement that you made, being a former soldier myself who went through some of the training that Don has mentioned. What soldiers just show up to dental appointments? Sure, there are REMFs and pogues, but even they have jobs to do.
> 
> One I've noticed, back when I was in, sleep deprivation wasn't considered torture. It was almost a matter of course even. But it seems to be now. Why has that changed?
> 
> Jeff


 
George W. Bush was unable to be located during his last year of service in the Texas Air National Guard. 

January 6, 1973 ... on this date, there is a record of a dentist appointment. It is the only evidence that Lt. Bush was in the ANG during his last year of service. 

Other than that, the commanders in Alabama have no record or recollection of Mr. Bush serving.



As for what constitutes torture ... I am not arguing specific tactics. Nor do I attempt to explain any changes. 

What I am arguing is that the United States government has ratified the Geneva Conventions, which specifically deals with treatment of prisoners. The President is attempting to change this 60 year old treaty and law. People with a great deal of military service are against this change. They are stating it is bad for the country, and dangerous for our service members. On this issue, I will trust McCain, Powell, Warner and Graham, much more than five deferment, other priorities VP Cheney and dentist appointment President Bush. 

In violation of the law, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have held prisoners in undisclosed locations, without access to the Red Cross society, without ability to communicate to their homes.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 16, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> One I've noticed, back when I was in, sleep deprivation wasn't considered torture. It was almost a matter of course even. But it seems to be now. Why has that changed?
> 
> Jeff


 
Bush is president.


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 16, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> As for what constitutes torture ... I am not arguing specific tactics. Nor do I attempt to explain any changes.



It seems appropriate to talk about what we define as "torture' for this debate.

Is the items being discussed the same thing that we do to our own soldiers?  That does seem to be the case if we talk about actual cases and policies being discussed.

As for the idea that we want our soldiers to be safe when captured, it seems that if we extend compasion to nations and groups that treat our soldiers with compassion we meet that goal. If we give compassionate treatment to those that slowly saw the heads off of any American they can capture, there really is no meaning to the idea- is there? 

So why should the terrorists treat our soldiers with any compassion when we will treat them decently anyways? That should be a matter of debate I think.

Especially when what we are talking about America doing is along the lines of things that do not leave a person with physical or mental scars and we do to our own soldiers.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 16, 2006)

I'm still trying to figure out why making prisoners eat MRE's was considered torture... does that mean we are torturing our own servicemen and women?

Starving them over the course of weeks may be torture, but not serving gourmet meals?  Whats next, its torture if we dont leave a mint on their pillow and fold the clean towels in the shape of a swan?

Gimme a ****ing break.​


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 16, 2006)

Why does Colin Powell hate America?

Why does John Warner hate America?

Why does Lindsey Graham hate America? 

Why does John McCain hate America? 




Seems to me, if Article III of the Geneva Conventions are good enough for them, (and have been good enough for the country for 60 years) they certainly should be good enough for the military.


Of course, if the CIA has already violated these articles, what better way to deal with it than to change the law after the fact.


----------



## Fu_Bag (Sep 16, 2006)

Here's an interesting read: 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/10/wirq10.xml

Interesting perspective there....

Nah, not folding the towels would be nothing.  What we should really do is to say that our martial art is better than theirs!!!  

I guess some would say that torture is refusing to saw their heads off on international TV.  We're such bastards.  I'm so ashamed......


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 16, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Why does Colin Powell hate America?
> 
> Why does John Warner hate America?
> 
> ...



Obviously they do not hate America and this is the "Appeal to authority" logical fallacy.

I served in the military too, same as Technopunk and others on this side of the debate. (As an aside- I do happen to think making people MREs is a war crime having eaten quite a few myself.:barf: ) You don't see him, I or others try to say that we have more of a say in the matter than folks like yourself that have never served. (Have you?)

It is a matter of debate. We should lay out the different points and see the merits and faults with both sides of the issue rather than just say that certain people have a certain position and no one else should dare disagree with them. I respect all of the people you listed, but I don't have to agree with everything they say.


----------



## Fu_Bag (Sep 16, 2006)

I think that people need to consider EVERYTHING in Article 4 before making comments about Article 3.

From http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm



_[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Article 4[/FONT]_ 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](c) That of carrying arms openly;[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.[/FONT] 


It's pretty simple to me.  The ones being held do not honor Article 4.  Therefore, they do not get to claim Article 3 benefits and protections.


----------



## tradrockrat (Sep 16, 2006)

fu bag!

You stop making sense right this minute!

There is no room for logic in political bikering.

You must cease and desist at once!

This is your only warning.  After this you will be forced to sleep on rayon sheets - no cotton -  and eat MRE's for six weeks.


lol


----------



## Fu_Bag (Sep 16, 2006)

tradrockrat,

LOL!!!!!!  Damn!  I'm busted!!!  A subtitle for your post could've been titled "How Military Wives Get Kinky"!!

p.s.  My wife was snort laughing when she read your post!!!


Fu Bag


----------



## tradrockrat (Sep 16, 2006)

Fu_Bag said:


> tradrockrat,
> 
> LOL!!!!!!  Damn!  I'm busted!!!  A subtitle for your post could've been titled "How Military Wives Get Kinky"!!
> 
> ...



Glad I could be of service...


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 17, 2006)

Fu_Bag said:


> It's pretty simple to me. The ones being held do not honor Article 4. Therefore, they do not get to claim Article 3 benefits and protections.


 
Which makes it perfectly okay to torture them...


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Which makes it perfectly okay to torture them...



If you are worried about breaking the Geneva convention and having our soldiers tortured in turn....yes. They do not apply in this case as I thought.

Now, if you are worried about us becoming what we fight as Shesulsa and others have talked about, then we need to keep within things that do not leave mental or physical scars and that we do out own soldiers- like eat MREs.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 17, 2006)

Just give them the peanut butter and crackers out of the MRE's for a week or two.  That'll get anyone talking.

Jeff


----------



## crushing (Sep 17, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> Just give them the peanut butter and crackers out of the MRE's for a week or two. That'll get anyone talking.
> 
> Jeff


 

Hey now, I'd take those peanut butter and crackers over a dehydrated pork patty any day.  Especially if I scored some cocoa mix to put in the peanut butter.  Been there, done that.


----------



## dubljay (Sep 17, 2006)

Not being well versed in the Geneva Convention, military rules and regulations, or in the quality of MRE's I do have my own point of view.

Take what I have to say with a grain of salt because I've stopped paying close attention to the whole thing, because it's too convoluted for me to follow.


As far as I'm concerned torture is wrong, regardless of how badly we need the information, and I doubt many here would disagree.  Some things like sleep depravation while not exactly pleasant I dont have too big of a problem with, provided the individual's health is not permanently affected.  As far as physical trauma, ect I think it's just wrong.  I see two reasons why it shouldn't be tolerated.  First and foremost, is that when word of even alleged torture gets out it gives all kinds of provocation to our enemies (not that they need any further provocation, but hey lets not fuel the fire).  Secondly, these individuals being held are held on US bases (even if they are undisclosed locations).  Now if I understand things correctly more or less a US base is somewhat considered US soil.  While a military base is subject to its own rules and laws, it is still subject to other national laws (i.e. the Constitution).  Anyone who comes to our country is under the protection of said laws regardless of their citizenship.  Should this not also apply to POW's taken in for questioning?  Again I haven't the foggiest idea of the true legalities of how it all works, but this makes sense in my head.  Perhaps those that are/have been in the service can shed some light.  


In short torture shouldnt be tolerated or even considered as policy given that it violates rights granted by the Constitution.   How hypocritical is it to claim to hold human rights as a corner stone of our way of life and to turn around and deny those rights to a people we are trying to 'help'?


Secondly... as to Technopunk's question about giving prisoner's MRE's as torture... perhaps the MRE contained food that they are prohibited from eating by their religion.... just a thought.



Again take my post with a grain of salt because I haven't been keeping up with it.  I know I should, as a citizen its my duty to be informed, but it's hard to see past the political spin and see the facts as they truly are.


----------



## Fu_Bag (Sep 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Which makes it perfectly okay to torture them...


 
If you say so.  Seriously though, what do you suggest we do to get the information? Make them wear a burqua all day in sweltering heat? Do something to their genitalia so that sex won't be enjoyable for them? Force them into a lower position in the world? Stone them? Create materials that show how to beat them without leaving marks or breaking them "too badly" to be able to do the work befitting to them - slavery? Maybe even an honor killing or two?

You could make them wear panties, bark like a dog, eat MRE rations they object to, put them in a zippered leather mask and spank them like the bad boys and girls that they are, and none of it will be worse than what they subject others to. Does this mean we shouldn't torture them? Well, I don't know. Maybe the solution is to leave them helpless in a room filled with well equipped, formerly oppressed, women from their country and see what information they have to offer then?

I don't have the answer. If you do, I'd be willing to listen. The only qualifier is that whatever you say can only be pertaining to methods of gathering the information that is needed. Is that fair?

Fu Bag


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 17, 2006)

Fu_Bag said:


> If you say so.  Seriously though, what do you suggest we do to get the information? Make them wear a burqua all day in sweltering heat? Do something to their genitalia so that sex won't be enjoyable for them? Force them into a lower position in the world? Stone them? Create materials that show how to beat them without leaving marks or breaking them "too badly" to be able to do the work befitting to them - slavery? Maybe even an honor killing or two?
> 
> You could make them wear panties, bark like a dog, eat MRE rations they object to, put them in a zippered leather mask and spank them like the bad boys and girls that they are, and none of it will be worse than what they subject others to. Does this mean we shouldn't torture them? Well, I don't know. Maybe the solution is to leave them helpless in a room filled with well equipped, formerly oppressed, women from their country and see what information they have to offer then?
> 
> ...


 
There's just one little snag in your suggestions, Fu Bag....

Torture is not and never has been an efficient means of "gathering the information". Its proponents simply _assume_ that it is, but science does not back up their presumptions. I suspect psychological inertia, as well as a subconscious desire for bloodlust and revenge, is the reason why torture is still practiced in modern societies.

Have a good one.


----------



## Fu_Bag (Sep 17, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> There's just one little snag in your suggestions, Fu Bag....
> 
> Torture is not and never has been an efficient means of "gathering the information". Its proponents simply _assume_ that it is, but science does not back up their presumptions. I suspect psychological inertia, as well as a subconscious desire for bloodlust and revenge, is the reason why torture is still practiced in modern societies.
> 
> Have a good one.


 

Heretic,

I don't necessarily disagree with you.  It sounds like you have some knowledge to share regarding a non-violent alternative for gathering the information.  How would a scientist gather the information from such people?


Fu Bag


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 17, 2006)

Again..it all comes down to definitions "torture" a la "beating it out of him" may not be efficient. Techniques like lighting, feeding times, uncomfortable positioning may very well be. Those of a specific political leaning seem to think anything more than nice questioning with their lawyers present is "torture". Again I say that a good interrogator doesnt just "torture in the blind"...he will have other data that will verify whatever he is getting.


----------



## Fu_Bag (Sep 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Again..it all comes down to definitions "torture" a la "beating it out of him" may not be efficient. Techniques like lighting, feeding times, uncomfortable positioning may very well be. Those of a specific political leaning seem to think anything more than nice questioning with their lawyers present is "torture". Again I say that a good interrogator doesnt just "torture in the blind"...he will have other data that will verify whatever he is getting.


 

"torture in the blind"???!!!! Uh Oh..... I'd certainly hope an interrogator wouldn't do that. That almost sounds like it'd be the INTERROGATOR with the panties on their head rather than the VICTIM!!!! Yeah, now it makes more sense to me. We just need to be really careful so that the wrong person doesn't end up with panties on their head. I could see where that'd be a disaster!!!  It's nice that we've found a peaceful resolution to that one.


Fu Bag 



p.s. The above is meant to be humorous in nature.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 17, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> There's just one little snag in your suggestions, Fu Bag....
> 
> Torture is not and never has been an efficient means of "gathering the information". Its proponents simply _assume_ that it is, but science does not back up their presumptions. I suspect psychological inertia, as well as a subconscious desire for bloodlust and revenge, is the reason why torture is still practiced in modern societies.
> 
> Have a good one.


 
But, Heretic ... didn't you hear ... 

the CIA took custody of Mr. Al-Libi from the FBI, then they rendered him to Egypt - where he was fed milk and cookies every day - as they were shoving red-hot pokers into all his orafices. 

He told Mr. Tenet about these neat Mobile Bio-Weapon Labratories in tractor trailers and rail cars in Iraq... He said that Hussein had at least 7 of these death machines. 

Who says you can't get good information from torture ... oh, wait ...

..... never mind .....


P.S.  Since you guys are all lovey touchy on this treatment ... and since you seem to believe that all that is being discussed is eating MRE's and listening to the Red Hot Chili Peppers ... any of you guys going to volunteer for the CIA to test their methods ... I noticed nobody is discussing Waterboarding?  Did you do that in your training too guys?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 17, 2006)

What makes any of us believe that we can even figure out what the CIA's methods are?  I would imagine that that information would be highly confidential.


----------



## Fu_Bag (Sep 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> What makes any of us believe that we can even figure out what the CIA's methods are? I would imagine that that information would be highly confidential.


 
Now THAT is what I'd call "the voice of reason". 

Nice. Very nice.....

That holds true for a lot of other "public opinion" debates as well. On the plus side, at least they're getting milk and cookies!!!! 

Of course, if the milk isn't cold, the cookies are stale, AND there's panties on the head, well then, that might be a little too severe for someone who wants, and/or has tried, to commit mass murder.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 17, 2006)

Fu_Bag said:


> , that might be a little too severe for someone who wants, and/or has tried, to commit mass murder.


 

I'm guessing you are too busy training to listen to loud rock music to have read this article .. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060917/ap_on_re_mi_ea/in_american_hands

Yep ...14,000 detainees beyond the reach of jurisprudence.

I bet every single one of them attempted to committ mass murder. 



> "It was hard to believe I'd get out," Baghdad shopkeeper Amjad Qassim al-Aliyawi told The Associated Press after his release  without charge  last month. "I lived with the Americans for one year and eight months as if I was living in hell."


 
Twenty Months without charge .... wonder why? 

The article also states that many of these detainees are 'pulled from beds at midnight' ... .which is not captured on the battlefield. Forgive me for stating the obvious, as those two activities are mutually exclusive. 

And, of course, these are detainees at Army Prisons. 

There is no count for those held in undisclosed CIA prisons, or those who have been rendered to other countries.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 17, 2006)

Fu_Bag said:


> Now THAT is what I'd call "the voice of reason".
> 
> Nice. Very nice.....
> 
> ...


 
I guess it just struck me...its just that simple.  We really don't know and can't know about what they are REALLY doing to these guys.  Everything is just speculation.  

With that being said, I think that we need to take into account the fact that the CIA has done some really heinous things to people in the past when we speculate.  Yet, this can't immediately equate to these things happening now.

Of course, it is entirely possible that they may be using techniques and technology that no one would even have the slightest clue about.


----------



## Fu_Bag (Sep 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa,

We have very similar thoughts about these types of things.  Great posts!

Fu Bag


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> P.S.  Since you guys are all lovey touchy on this treatment ... and since you seem to believe that all that is being discussed is eating MRE's and listening to the Red Hot Chili Peppers ... any of you guys going to volunteer for the CIA to test their methods ... I noticed nobody is discussing Waterboarding?  Did you do that in your training too guys?



Not I, but a guy in my unit volunteered for it. He spilled his guts within seconds and was none the worse for it afterwards. No scars mental or physical.

And of course, you don't do things like this to everyone in custody. If someone is dropped dime on as a terrorist suspect, you have to take into account it might be someone settling scores and treat them with that as a possiblity. But if someone is caught with a defective suicide vest on, then you can be pretty sure they are involved somehow and probably know something.

So the vast majority of people being held are probably being treated better than they would if any Arab goverment brought them in. You might have missed the article Fu Bag linked to where the prisoners at Abu Gahbi prison are begging for the Americans to come back. If you take a look at how things are run in Syria and such, even what they go through there now is tame. But as long as it is Arabs treating Arabs badly, the world does not seem to have a problem with it.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> and since you seem to believe that all that is being discussed is eating MRE's



Since you seem to be putting words in my mouth... Let me clarify.

I never said that is *ALL* that is being done.  I questioned *WHY that SPECIFIC item* was being considered Torture.

​


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> But, Heretic ... didn't you hear ...
> 
> the CIA took custody of Mr. Al-Libi from the FBI, then they rendered him to Egypt - where he was fed milk and cookies every day - as they were shoving red-hot pokers into all his orafices.
> 
> ...


In SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) school.

With medics right there.

Jeff


----------



## Elayna (Sep 17, 2006)

Wow this is definatly an interesting topic.  Im honestly not sure what its about.
Is it about whether it is right or wrong to torture people?  Is it about the methods of "torture"?  Is it about who should be tortured and who shouldnt be?  So because I  believe that this thread is all of the above I wish to claryify my own postion on these things as I have been tortured and seen it done.  Not by military or the CIA, but worse, by  those who were supposed to protect me.

MY definition of Torture.   Anything whether physicall of emotional that inflicts severe/extreme harm.   Such as...stabbing one with a knife in the right places that only inflicts pain but not death.  Such as extreme degrading of ones self or loved ones.   Extrme light torture. Such as bright flashing lights over and over while your eyes are taped open.   I believe that this is where torture ranges along with several other  things that could be described right?
I dont think eating bad food or sleeping on the floor or ******** in the room you sleep in is torture.  Having to bark like a dog or wearing panties on your head is not torture.  It may be humiliating but when has anyone never been humiliated?  I mean come on be real.   I know plenty of kids that had the same thing happen to them as an initiation in public school.  So get reall people.

Is it right to torture people?
I would have to say it depends.  What did they do? What is their intent? 
If they hurt several hundreds of people and they have information that could save lives and that is the only thing they respond to and that is no better way,  then yes, it would be appropriate.   Now i dont believe anyone can live with themselves after doing horrific things to a person unless they are evil.  So I dont think torturing someone is something anyone likes to do, no matter what the press says.
Determing whether it is appropriate or not depends on the sitation, which none of us really knows for sure now do we? Be honest.  Are you there? Have you looked into their eyes?  Have you spoken to them?  No.  You just here what the media puts out.  So before you cast your judgement on what is appropriate I suggest you get first hand knowledge.
Or at least come up with some solutions instead of bitching about how they are doing such a horrible job.  Join them and then you can actuall tell them to their face.

Those that should be tortured are those people who hold the key to someone or several peoples lives and the refuse to cooperate in any way.
I believe it to be the inflictors responsiblity to come up with alternate means to get the desired result.  I believe that there is always one if you look hard enough.
But then again there are those people who refuse to give you one.   Like suicide bombers for instance.  When they have a mission and nothing will stop them.   Then you do what you must.

I DO NOT ENDORSE TORTURE!!!!!!!

All that I am saying is this.  When you have no other options you do what you must to save lives.  If you do not like the methods then get off your *** and do something about it instead of bitching.  Because you just complaining about it isnt going to change the fact that whether or not you see it on the news it wont happen.
Torture amongst the ranks has been going on for thousands of years people.   And dont you for a second think that just because were nice they will be nice.  If you think that then you indeed dont have any of the life experience neccessary to judge.

I will tell you this. I was nice.  I did nothing wrong.  But I still was tortured.  It made no difference that I begged. That I did everything I was told.  That I did everything I could do to be perfect.   It wasnt enough.  They did it anyway and then told me "I love you".
If someone that says that too you would still torture you, what makes you think military who are trained will be any different????????

So...why are you debating this topic?  What is your motivation? What is your definitions?     Why do you stand where you stand? 
Tell me!.
How do you know your way is the right way?  And what do you plan on doing about it??


----------



## elder999 (Sep 18, 2006)

Elayna said:


> I would have to say it depends. What did they do? What is their intent?
> If they hurt several hundreds of people and they have information that could save lives and that is the only thing they respond to and that is no better way, then yes, it would be appropriate. Now i dont believe anyone can live with themselves after doing horrific things to a person unless they are evil. So I dont think torturing someone is something anyone likes to do, no matter what the press says.


 

As posted before, torgture is never appropriate, because it generally doesn't work.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 18, 2006)

Technopunk said:


> Since you seem to be putting words in my mouth... Let me clarify.
> 
> I never said that is *ALL* that is being done. I questioned *WHY that SPECIFIC item* was being considered Torture.


 
The only person I have heard mention that MRE's were considered torture has been you. 

Can you expand my horizons? Who else is so claiming?

Incidently, there are serveral specific references in the Geneva Conventions about what is to be fed to prisoners, and how that feeding is to be monitored.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 18, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> In SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) school.
> 
> With medics right there.
> 
> Jeff


 
Thank you.

So, when you were subject to this technique, you were assured that those standing around you were there to protect you? I wonder if the experience is any different without those assurances.


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 18, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Thank you.
> 
> So, when you were subject to this technique, you were assured that those standing around you were there to protect you? I wonder if the experience is any different without those assurances.



Probably. The important point is that while it scares the spit even out of people that know in the back of their mind that they are not going to die, it does not leave scars mental or physical.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 18, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Thank you.
> 
> So, when you were subject to this technique, you were assured that those standing around you were there to protect you? I wonder if the experience is any different without those assurances.


Were we assured?  Not specifically.  But the idea that they wouldn't actually kill us was there since it was a school.  

That being said, they did a great job of putting doubt into your mind about that.

Jeff


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 18, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> Were we assured? Not specifically. But the idea that they wouldn't actually kill us was there since it was a school.
> 
> That being said, they did a great job of putting doubt into your mind about that.
> 
> Jeff


 
I understand the guards are the known military facilities (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, etc - as opposed to the black facilities operated by the CIA) 
have visited the SERE schools in North Carolina and Maine to learn the techniques taught to Special Forces candidates. 


Of course, discussing that which is unknown becomes very difficult, Because everyone is speculating. However;

Mr. al-Libi was captured.
He was originally interrogated by the FBI, who report they were getting good information from him. The CIA came in and took custody of the prisoner.
The CIA rendered him to Egypt.
Under Egyptian interrogation, he reported that al Qaeda members were trained in the use of Chemical and Biological Weapons by Saddam Hussein's military.
This claim was used by the President and his administration in lead up to the Iraq invasion as justification for the invasion.
After the invasion, in the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction, we learned that Mr. al-Libi's claims were completely false.
Mr. al-Libi has, returned to US custody, has recanted on these claims.
While one example does demonstrate a sufficient sample to prove a theory, this does seem to show that the program of Extrodinary Rendition - torture - does not render actionable intelligence.

Of course, actionable intelligence may not have been the objective.


----------



## Elayna (Sep 18, 2006)

So....again I ask....Why are you debating this topic?  What is your motivation?  If you do not support torture and believe it is ineffective what is your solution???

I cant believe that no one is offering up solutions.  I mean come on.  Is all you can do just argure about how people are wrong all the time??  If so that is just....a waste of time for everyone.   I dont care what your views are on the whole situation.
Its just ridicoulus to go over and over and over a subject and give no sign of relief of agreement.
Like Xue, I am getting tired of arguments and dead horses being beat.  I swear it seems like a fetish around here.

So write a freaking letter to those who can actually change it?  I mean what is your mission to change the world and the way everyone looks at it?   I mean really people.
It seems that whenever I put a post like this up people ignore it, i wonder why??  Maybe because you dont want to stop bickering.
A healthy debate is one thing...but beating a dead horse is just...OLD.
So yes, this may be harsh...but so is life.
And heaven forbid if someone should have to actually pay for their actions.  OMG.  *rolling eyes*.

And I say to you this.....Until you have looked into the eyes of a person who has no other inent then to kill or harm you or someone else, you have no right to judge about what punishment or any "interrogation" they should receive.

And to some the above may sound animalistic or whatever word you wish to use...But have you been there?  Have you experienced those feelings?

You are not on the front lines everyday  seeing what others see. You dont see all the real and true information they see.  Talk to military people...ask the question to the people who can give you real answers other then back stabbing politicans and press.  They see only what the want to see.  The men and women in uniform and the people who work everyday in those types of situation, see stuff they would never want to see.  Ask them..for that is where the truth of the situation is.

I dont think this debate is really about torture.  I think this debate is about how people want the world run and many underlying things.  I think this is only a topic and and not the meat of the issue.
Because I dont think it would matter for certain people what the methods are...I think it is only who is doing the methods...if you get my drift.

So i ask you again??   What are you trying to accomplish? What is your motivation?  If it were up to you how would you do it?
God stop complaining and say something other then...
Oh your dumb...oh you know nothing..Blah blah blah blah.
Sounds like im in the freaking grand canyon with that echo.

If you know better methods then torture put them out there.  Dont just say there out there, put them out there.
I would love to know.
cause then maybe we can tell the enemy....
Hey please do this instead of torture...it works so much better.
HAHAHAHA.

anyways....


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 18, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> A prisoner that eventually succumbs to the wounds he gained prior to being captured would be dead by homicide.
> 
> Do you know that there is murder and torture going on? Do you have proof?


 
This is from an Amnesty International report. Of course, it never matters who the author of the report is, does it? 




> "It is now known that at least 34 detainees who died in US custody have had their deaths listed by the army as confirmed or suspected criminal homicides. The true number of such deaths may be higher as there is evidence that delays, cover-ups and deficiencies in investigations have hampered the collection of evidence. In several cases, however, substantial evidence has emerged that *detainees were tortured to death* while under interrogation (revealed, for example, in military autopsy reports, investigation records and recent court testimony). What is even more disturbing is that standard practices as well as interrogation techniques believed to have fallen within officially sanctioned parameters, appear to have played a role in the ill-treatment..."


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 18, 2006)

elder999 said:


> As posted before, torgture is never appropriate, because it generally doesn't work.


 
It's also, y'know, wrong.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 18, 2006)

There should be rules, we are a nation of law after all. My only beef is that this current issue is 99% politics ans 1% "human rights" IMO. If George said he wanted to feed all Gitmo prisoners McDonalds, some here would be crying thier hearts out. And to the "its not effective" crowd, if some form of "torture" could be shown to be highly effective, would that make any difference?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 18, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> There should be rules, we are a nation of law after all. My only beef is that this current issue is 99% politics ans 1% "human rights" IMO. If George said he wanted to feed all Gitmo prisoners McDonalds, some here would be crying thier hearts out. And to the "its not effective" crowd, if some form of "torture" could be shown to be highly effective, would that make any difference?


 
I am not arguing effectiveness. Although, I agree it is ineffective. 

I am arguing it is against the law, you know, the Geneva Conventions; The law our country approved fifty seven years ago. 

That President Bush has authorized the CIA to break this law, and is now, retroactively trying to cover his ***, is obscene. 

That we have an Attorney General of the United States who has argued that Article III of the Geneva Conventions is 'quaint' and out of date, which therefore no longer needs to be adhered to, is obscene. Shouldn't have that statement, alone, disqualified him from serving as AG? We no longer need to adhere to our treaty obligations. 


There are Four Lights!


P.S.  ... And I'll note for the record, those 99%-ers, those damned political activists, Colin Powell and John McCain.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 18, 2006)

I have only made a few posts on this thread to ask for clarification or to give some information.  Now, I think I want my opinion to be out there with the rest though.

Torture is wrong.  Regardless of how effective it is, it is simply morally wrong.  However, I do think there is some Grey area as to what constitutes torture.  I would consider water boarding torture.  But not sleep deprivation.  I've been subjected to both.  Both are effective at breaking down a persons will.  Water boarding however puts a person in fear for their lives, whereas depriving someone of sleep might make you more susceptible to interrogation, it is not life threatening.

Basically, I think what constitutes torture falls into "I'll know it when I see it" category.

Jeff


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 18, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> I have only made a few posts on this thread to ask for clarification or to give some information. Now, I think I want my opinion to be out there with the rest though.
> 
> Torture is wrong. Regardless of how effective it is, it is simply morally wrong. However, I do think there is some Grey area as to what constitutes torture. I would consider water boarding torture. But not sleep deprivation. I've been subjected to both. Both are effective at breaking down a persons will. Water boarding however puts a person in fear for their lives, whereas depriving someone of sleep might make you more susceptible to interrogation, it is not life threatening.
> 
> ...


 
Same here.


----------



## OUMoose (Sep 18, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> Torture is wrong. Regardless of how effective it is, it is simply morally wrong. However, I do think there is some Grey area as to what constitutes torture. I would consider water boarding torture. But not sleep deprivation. I've been subjected to both. Both are effective at breaking down a persons will. Water boarding however puts a person in fear for their lives, whereas depriving someone of sleep might make you more susceptible to interrogation, it is not life threatening.
> 
> Basically, I think what constitutes torture falls into "I'll know it when I see it" category.


 
That is your opinion, and I respect that.  However, I also disagree with part of it.

I agree that Torture is wrong, period.  Not only is it wrong because the torturer is willingly causing suffering to another person, its ineffective.  It is instinctual to try to get away from discomfort, so in the end the torturee will say whatever to get out of it (factual or not).  

Also, You may "know it when you see it", but what about me?  My idea of "acceptable" may be a little different than yours.  My idea may be different than the next guy's.  Using something as subjective as opinion to measure the effectiveness of interrogation would be risky at best.

For example, lets take your idea of sleep dep.  How long is enough?  A day?  A week?  A month?  What level of psychological damage will be done with an extended period of sleep depervation?  IIRC, during the MKULTRA project, Sleep Depervation was one of the techniques used to fracture a person's personality.  

As another point, if somehow our gov't defines "acceptable" levels of torture, when will it be applied to us?  When will "confessions under duress" become the norm and considered acceptable evidence to a domestic crime?

With as much as religion is toted around like a banner with this administration, one would think a message from the bible as simple as "do unto others..." would ring true here.  :idunno:


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 18, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I am not arguing effectiveness. Although, I agree it is ineffective.
> 
> I am arguing it is against the law, you know, the Geneva Conventions; The law our country approved fifty seven years ago.



You seem to have missed the post by Fu Bag. The conventions do not apply in the cases we are talking about.

Especially if we are talking about things like making people stand at attention and such to take the edge off of them before they tangle with an interogator. But if we got Osama and knew that he knew some details that could save thousands of Americans, legally and morally we could waterboard him.

Of course, we do not do that sort of things with all the thousands of people we keep in custody, even though some seem to be trying to paint that as the case. I and others oppose the  type of thing that a few people have gotten charged by the US goverment for doing to prisioners under their care. I think most service members would be pretty mad at the way some sources try to present all American soldiers as being abusive instead of admitting that it is only a few bad ones that later get charged.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 18, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> You seem to have missed the post by Fu Bag. The conventions do not apply in the cases we are talking about.
> 
> Especially if we are talking about things like making people stand at attention and such to take the edge off of them before they tangle with an interogator. But if we got Osama and knew that he knew some details that could save thousands of Americans, legally and morally we could waterboard him.
> 
> Of course, we do not do that sort of things with all the thousands of people we keep in custody, even though some seem to be trying to paint that as the case. I and others oppose the type of thing that a few people have gotten charged by the US goverment for doing to prisioners under their care. I think most service members would be pretty mad at the way some sources try to present all American soldiers as being abusive instead of admitting that it is only a few bad ones that later get charged.


 

Common article III of the Geneva Conventions apply to all prisoners / detainees - whatever you wish to call them. That is why it is referred to as 'Common'. That farmer hogget was turned into an Afghan warlord does excuse the United States military from its obligations under Geneva; the laws of our land. 

Your discussion of 'Osama' places the cart before the horse. How do you know which person has the information that justifies your application of waterboarding *before *the fact. How do you know how many Americans are in jeapordy *before* the bad guy takes action. And ... how can you trust *this* administration when so much of their intelligence has been so bad .... are you still looking over your shoulder for those Iraqi UAV's carrying biological weapons? 

As for a 'few bad ones' - Amnesty International disputes that claim. But further, who is responsible for the actions of the low ranking officials in the military? Why have no high ranking officials been prosecuted in the Abu Ghraib incidents?  

None of these arguments face the test of reality.


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 18, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Common article III of the Geneva Conventions apply to all prisoners / detainees - whatever you wish to call them. That is why it is referred to as 'Common'. That farmer hogget was turned into an Afghan warlord does excuse the United States military from its obligations under Geneva; the laws of our land.



Read article IV of the convention. To qualify for Geneva protection, you have to follow the rules and definitions. I remember my training in it. Soldiers are told straight out that if they try to escape a POW camp they have to keep their uniforms on. If they are found outside of their uniforms, the least that can happen to them is they will be shot as spies or partisans and the Geneva convention will not apply. 



michaeledward said:


> Your discussion of 'Osama' places the cart before the horse. How do you know which person has the information that justifies your application of waterboarding *before *the fact. How do you know how many Americans are in jeapordy *before* the bad guy takes action. And ... how can you trust *this* administration when so much of their intelligence has been so bad .... are you still looking over your shoulder for those Iraqi UAV's carrying biological weapons?



You are assuming that we do not know. There is a lot that goes on in gathering intelligence from a prisoner. I gave a hypothetical situation to encourage debate an you will not even acknowledge that the sitaution may happen. 



michaeledward said:


> As for a 'few bad ones' - Amnesty International disputes that claim. But further, who is responsible for the actions of the low ranking officials in the military? Why have no high ranking officials been prosecuted in the Abu Ghraib incidents?
> 
> None of these arguments face the test of reality.



The people that were found to be guilty in the Abu Ghraib case were punished. Their supreiors were investigated but not enough evidence was found to prosecute them. However they were punished for lack of oversite.

I personally do not think that the typical American soldier is a sadistic, murdering bastard no matter what AI charges. If they do cross the line, they should be punished and it looks like they are.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 18, 2006)

OUMoose said:


> It is instinctual to try to get away from discomfort, so in the end the torturee will say whatever to get out of it (factual or not).


 
If what he is saying matches up with what you have gathered from other sources its verifiable. If he starts naming suspects that 3 other guys have named (or you already have in custody), you know hes telling you the truth. You would never start an investigation or bet all your chips on info gathered from one of these subjects, you are going to get a mixture of truth, half-truth and "what you want to hear" its up to the "spooks" to figure out whats what. The "its ineffectual" arument is unproven to me, these are methods to get info out of people. ANY method is going to result in them telling you what you want to hear. What technique will result in getting the truth out of these guys? These techniques (as far as I have read) are about speed, vs. a long drawn out series of questioning, verifying, re-questioning. You people are thinking its "TELL ME WHERE THE BOMB IS OR IM TEARING OUT YOUR EYES!!" You all have seen too many steven segall movies. The "its ineffectual" argument from internet posters vs. what the CIA has investigated and wants...well lets just say I believe that the spooks are very good at figuring out if a person is lying to make the treatment stop. They can pull off 9/11 but they cant figure that out??


----------



## tshadowchaser (Sep 18, 2006)

> I am arguing it is against the law, you know, the Geneva Conventions; The law our country approved fifty seven years ago.


 
we may by law abide by the convention but our enemies do not. Why the hell can we not play by the rules that others use against us.  I would rather have one person get tortured and save lives than have them not and have 100's or 1000's killed because we do not have that information.




> Read article IV of the convention. To qualify for





> Geneva protection, you have to follow the rules and definitions.



again our enemies do no follow these rules


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 18, 2006)

tshadowchaser said:


> we may by law abide by the convention but our enemies do not. Why the hell can we not play by the rules that others use against us.


 
I would have thought the answer was so glaringly obvious, but I suppose it needs to be spelled out to some:

Because. We. Are. Not. Terrorists.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 18, 2006)

tshadowchaser said:


> we may by law abide by the convention but our enemies do not. Why the hell can we not play by the rules that others use against us. I would rather have one person get tortured and save lives than have them not and have 100's or 1000's killed because we do not have that information.
> 
> 
> again our enemies do no follow these rules


 
I'm with Heretic on this one ...

We obey rules and laws because our nation is based on rules and laws. To ignore those rules and laws for the sake of expediency, diminishes us all. 

I do not expect the President (any president) to keep me safe from everything in the world. Think of all the warning labels on consumer goods. Weren't the Republicans arguing just a few years ago about 'frivolous lawsuits', the fact that common sense needs to be applied to everyday things. 

Why now, has that idea been abandoned? 
Why must we surrender, or have the President give away, our liberties, in order to maintain the illusion that our nation was once the beacon of liberty?

To use a martial arts analogy, you can't defend against a sucker punch. Sure, you try to be environmentally aware of your surroundings, but you can't be aware of everything. And maybe a bad guy will land one on you unsuspecting. 

I trust the government is doing what it should ... but within the rules that make us who we are. But when we break those rules, we are no longer what we thought we were .... it is only our illusion of ourselves. 



 -- Gratuitus reminder -- 'When I say 'I trust the government is doing what is should' --- I mean the President actually pays attention to CIA Briefings that tell him Osama bin Laden is Determined to Strike in the US.  --- I have no patience for incompetence at that level.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 18, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Because. We. Are. Not. Terrorists.



No?  Im beginning to wonder how true that statement is...


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 18, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> We obey rules and laws because our nation is based on rules and laws.



And according to article IV of the Geneva convention- we are not breaking those laws.

Of course, saying that something is the law, we can't debate or change it if it turns out to be doing more harm than good is another appeal to authority logical fallacy. Eminent Domain is a case where we are taking a look at a law that is not going as it was intended and trying to change it. To use the same logic, we should just shut up and let the goverment do what it wants.

The idea that Heretic and others have put out that we do not want to become as bad as those we fight is a valid one. But if we are talking about things like making people stand up for periods of time, or even waterboarding, then I hardly think that comes even a little close to folks that target small children and slowly saw the heads off of prisoners.

Tshadowtracer is right. The other side is not playing by the rules and we are not even willing to deprive someone caught with a load of bombs a little sleep. I saw John McCain on TV last night and he was saying he was worried what Iranians might do if they captured Americans in the near future if we debated the Geneva convention and how we treat prisoners. I know he is honest in his opinions, but does anyone think that the Iranians would care at all about the Geneva convention in that case anyways? They did not treat the Embassy hostages according to it, nor the Iraqi troops they captured in that war.

We do not want to become what we fight. But just because as martial artists we do not want to become murderers does not mean that we do not learn how to use deadly force to defend ourselves against a knife attack. We would never pull in the 9 year old kid of someone we captured and rape her in front of him to get him to talk. The other side would.


----------



## OUMoose (Sep 18, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> We do not want to become what we fight. But just because as martial artists we do not want to become murderers does not mean that we do not learn how to use deadly force to defend ourselves against a knife attack. We would never pull in the 9 year old kid of someone we captured and rape her in front of him to get him to talk. The other side would.


No, we don't want to become what we fight.  I train to defend myself against a knife attack.  I don't train to beat the living crap out of the knife store owner to learn who bought knives in my general vicinity to defend against the same attack.  

... and never say never.


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 19, 2006)

OUMoose said:


> No, we don't want to become what we fight.  I train to defend myself against a knife attack.  I don't train to beat the living crap out of the knife store owner to learn who bought knives in my general vicinity to defend against the same attack.



That is not the point.

My point was that if someone tries to kill you and succeeds, they are a murderer. If you use lethal force to stop them, then even though you use the same means you are not a murderer.

If someone is reported as a terrorist, then it may be a case where someone is trying to settle scores. But if you caught someone like Bin Laden, then there is a lot more certainty. You deal with each appropriatly.

And I should point out that while the other side is quite willing to saw the heads off of Americans they catch, the items that we are discussing are nothing that members like JeffJ _volunteered_ to have done to them. I do not think we should sink to the level of torture that Osama would use, even on Osama himself. But if we are dealing with things that people volunteer for, I just don't see the moral equivelency.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 19, 2006)

To even begin to attempt to choose quotes from this article does it a disservice. 

But for those who continue to believe and to argue that the United States are the 'Good Guys', and it is only a few low level bad apples that perpetrating all these news stories; consider the case of Maher Arar.

Apparently, he was guilty of 'Flying while Muslem'. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14897315/


EDIT 

And here is a link to the full report.

http://www.ararcommission.ca/eng/26.htm

END EDIT


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 19, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> To even begin to attempt to choose quotes from this article does it a disservice.
> 
> But for those who continue to believe and to argue that the United States are the 'Good Guys', and it is only a few low level bad apples that perpetrating all these news stories; consider the case of Maher Arar.
> 
> ...



Yep, read it. We should keep people like that under our care instead of sending them back to Syria. But even sending someone to their home country is better than letting someone we think may be a terrorist loose and running around in America. If we send them to Gitmo, we get grief. If we send them back to their country, we get grief. If they later do terrorist acts, that is really bad.

So if we agree to keep someone in Gitmo as long as we want instead of sending them back to their countries as a suspect, would that be ok or would that be wrong? Just let them go?


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 19, 2006)

As far as the people detained at GITMO go, a lot of them don't want to go back home.  Many went on "Jihad" because they wanted to "atone" for their sins, which would get them the death penalty back in their home countries.  Many of the detainees are Chinese Muslims who were training with AQ in Afghanistan but had no intention of doing anything against the US or other western countries.  

Just thought I'd put this out there,

Jeff


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 19, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> As far as the people detained at GITMO go, a lot of them don't want to go back home.  Many went on "Jihad" because they wanted to "atone" for their sins, which would get them the death penalty back in their home countries.  Many of the detainees are Chinese Muslims who were training with AQ in Afghanistan but had no intention of doing anything against the US or other western countries.



Yeah. There are also some guys from other countries that are in the same boat. Send them back and they get killed.

But if a country like Canada tells us that they have reason to believe that someone is a terrorist with intentions towards the US, what should we really do? The problem is that even our closests allies will not give the exact sources of their information. That is the way the intelligence game is played. The sources would not hold up in a US court of law because of this secrecy so that even if we sent them to Gitmo they could be released into the US at a later date by a court order. 

We need a serious discussion about this, but there are too many people that don't want answers and debate, just a way to bash the current administration.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 19, 2006)

I should have been more clear in my last statement.  I wasn't trying to imply  that all the people who didn't wan't to leave GITMO were the Chinese Muslims.

Jeff


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 19, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> But if a country like Canada tells us that they have reason to believe that someone is a terrorist with intentions towards the US, *what should we really do?* The problem is that even our closests allies will not give the exact sources of their information.


 
Well, we can over-react. You know, kidnap a foreign national, hold him without charge for a year, send him overseas so that he can be tortured.

And what evidence did we have ---- zip, zero, nada, nothing. 

Now, let's think about what our closest allies are likely to do the next time. Do you think that next time when there is suspicion, but no facts, they are going to be likely to talk to us? When they saw how badly we behaved the first time around. 

If I were Canada, I would never again tell Americans about suspects. 

Our actions are alienating us from the world.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 19, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> I should have been more clear in my last statement. I wasn't trying to imply that all the people who didn't wan't to leave GITMO were the Chinese Muslims.
> 
> Jeff


 
JeffJ, do you have a source for this claim? 

Between hunger strikes and suicide attempts, I'm thinking the prisoners are not treating detention without end as a vacation. 

These prisoners are *never* going to be released by the United States government. They are never going to face a legal system. 

We have backed ourselves into a corner. (Or more accurately, President Bush, Alberto Gonzales, and Donald Rumsfeld have backed us into a corner).

What solution is there, outside of executing all four hundred sixty odd prisoners?


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 19, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> And what evidence did we have ---- zip, zero, nada, nothing.
> 
> Now, let's think about what our closest allies are likely to do the next time.



You forget, we did not capture this guy off the street. He was entering America and we had the word of Canada that they thought that he was a terrorist. So worrying about what our closest allies think is a bit beside the point since it is us who should be wondering about them.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 19, 2006)

Yes I do, albeit not one in print. I still have many friends that I stay in touch with, some who do interrogations.

Jeff


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 19, 2006)

Here is a story that details more about what JeffJ was talking about and the problems involved.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4979466.stm

So, send them back to China to be killed? Let guys who trained with Al Quaeda into the US?


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 19, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Here is a story that details more about what JeffJ was talking about and the problems involved.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4979466.stm
> 
> So, send them back to China to be killed? Let guys who trained with Al Quaeda into the US?



What!? People were RELEASED from Gitmo? I thought it was the lowest level of hell, with no escape!


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 19, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> You forget, we did not capture this guy off the street. He was entering America and we had the word of Canada that they thought that he was a terrorist. So worrying about what our closest allies think is a bit beside the point since it is us who should be wondering about them.


 
I thought you said you read the article ... 



> Arar, now 36, was detained by U.S. authorities as he changed planes in New York on Sept. 26, 2002.


 
That description to me sounds like his was picked up off the street. I can't imagine how you are defining that phrase. 

Canada asked that he be put on a 'watchlist'. Canadian intelligence was "*under pressure* to find terrorists". 

So, by your think, being on a watchlist is synonymous with being a terrorist. 

Canadian Justice O'Connor found this.... 



> O'Connor concluded "categorically there is no evidence" that Arar did anything wrong or was a security threat.


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 19, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> That description to me sounds like his was picked up off the street.



No, he was picked up in an airport as he was about to get onto another plane. A guy on a terrorist watch list supplied by Canada was about to get onto a plane. What would you do, let him on?


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 19, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Here is a story that details more about what JeffJ was talking about and the problems involved.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4979466.stm
> 
> So, send them back to China to be killed? Let guys who trained with Al Quaeda into the US?


Interesting that didn't get into the big american media news.

Thanks for finding that Don.

Jeff


----------



## qizmoduis (Sep 19, 2006)

This thread is a perfect example of the complete and utter lack of any kind of sensible moral and ethical perspective of modern American conservatives.  We, as Americans, should stand against torture BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO!  Not because we're afraid of how our soldiers will be treated by the enemy (usually badly, regardless).  Not because we signed onto the Geneva convention (and we did).  Not because it's ineffective (and it is).

The very fact that we even have to debate this as a civilised nation is absolutely astonishing and sickening.  This thread, and many of the responses in it make me ill.

For the record, the following is just one example of what Bush and his worshippers believe is not torture (from http://aclupa.blogspot.com/):



> Is this what it means to be an American?
> An hour or two later they came back, checked the tautness of his chains and pushed him over on his stomach. Transfixed in his bonds, Omar toppled like a figurine. Again they left. Many hours had passed since Omar had been taken from his cell. He urinated on himself and on the floor. The MPs returned, mocked him for a while and then poured pine-oil solvent all over his body. Without altering his chains, they began dragging him by his feet through the mixture of urine and pine oil. Because his body had been so tightened, the new motion racked it. The MPs swung him around and around, the piss and solvent washing up into his face. The idea was to use him as a human mop. When the MPs felt they'd successfully pretended to soak up the liquid with his body, they uncuffed him and carried him back to his cell. He was not allowed a change of clothes for two days.
> (snip)
> While he was at Guantanamo, Omar was beaten in the head, nearly suffocated, threatened with having his clothes taken indefinitely and, as at Bagram, lunged at by attack dogs while wearing a bag over his head. "Your life is in my hands," an intelligence officer told him during an interrogation in the spring of 2003. During the questioning, Omar gave an answer the interrogator did not like. He spat in Omar's face, tore out some of his hair and threatened to send him to Israel, Egypt, Jordan or Syria - places where they tortured people without constraints: very slowly, analytically removing body parts. The Egyptians, the interrogator told Omar, would hand him to Asfyri raqm tisa - Soldier Number Nine. Soldier Number Nine, the interrogator explained, was a guard who specialized in raping prisoners.
> ...



If you support this kind of stuff, there is something wrong with you.  This is just one of the myriad reasons why the current crop of conservatives need to be removed from power.  They are eating the soul of our country like a cancer from the inside.


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 19, 2006)

qizmoduis said:


> This thread is a perfect example of the complete and utter lack of any kind of sensible moral and ethical perspective of modern American conservatives.  We, as Americans, should stand against torture BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO!



In case you failed to notice, many of us are opposed to things that we would not do to our own soldiers. But guys like JeffJ actually volunteered to have some of this stuff tried on them. We are not for ripping the testicles off of people.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 19, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> You forget, we did not capture this guy off the street. *He was entering America* and we had the word of Canada that they thought that he was a terrorist. So worrying about what our closest allies think is a bit beside the point since it is us who should be wondering about them.


 
For the record, he was travelling through the country. 

That may be a bit of a semantic arguement. But often required when traveling from Switzerland to British Columbia.

Edit


			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> No, he was picked up in an airport as he was about to get onto another plane. A guy on a terrorist watch list supplied by Canada was about to get onto a plane. What would you do, let him on?



First - the Canadians were wrong. I would have a process that was not based on a single source, which may be prone to error.

Second - the correct course of action is to kidnap him, rip out his fingernails, burn his eyeballs, and disembowel him. Right? 

End Edit


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 19, 2006)

Just for the record, the bill that was authored by Senator John McCain and passed by Congress by a more than 95% margin simply says one thing.

All this bill states is that military and intelligence officials adhere to the standards of prisoner treatment outlined in the United States army field manuals. Yes, that's right. A bill actually had to be passed in Congress stating that soldiers actually follow their own military's rulebook.

Shortly after this bill passed, Vice President Richard Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made a failed attempt to revise the army field manual of the United States so that it would allow for some of the tactics mentioned on this thread.

That, in my opinion, speaks volumes about the moral integrity of the current power structure in Washington.

Laterz.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 21, 2006)

Last night on O'Reilly, an ABC investigative journalist reported on his investigation of coercive interrogation. O'Reilly asked him if it worked. The guy hemmed and hawed. He said he found it morally reprehensible, as did some of the CIA interragtors. Who said some aspects of it should be banned.

"But does it work."

More hemming. Lots of techniques. Mixed success. More hawing. The information is not always true.

Specifically, waterboarding. Feigned drowning. To appreciate its impact, the CIA interrogators have been waterboarded themselves.

"But does it work?"

The reporter said, that with regard to the 14 high level detainees who had been held in secret prisons around the world, it had worked. 100% of the time. All started spewing information. If the information turned out to be bad, more waterboarding.

"How long does it take?"

For most, within 45 seconds of it occurring, they were talking. Some crying. The toughest was Mohammed Sheikh Khalid. Who lasted 2 1/2 minutes. 

These people gave up the plan to blow up that tower in Los Angeles.

How many have died from this technique? "None".

Thousands of lives saved at the cost of feigned drowning.

Seems like an acceptable trade-off in the face of a barbaric, ruthless, hatefilled opponent whose interrogation techniques on the last two of our soldiers they captured was to torture, mutilate (any girlies need to have that explained?) and then behead.


----------



## tradrockrat (Sep 21, 2006)

uh oh... more common sense.  better cut it out.


----------



## Fu_Bag (Sep 22, 2006)

OK. I have a question. How effective do you think torture/feigned death scenario would be against someone who sees themself as a martyr? Do they still get to be a martyr if they don't die killing as many people as possible? Why are these tough cases talking if their ultimate goal is to die for their cause and then move on to the glories of their idea of their afterlife?

The latest tactic seems to be to kidnap people who frequent certain areas of a target, rig their vehicle with explosives, then let them go, follow them, and once they're close enough to the target, detonate them. In such a case, even if the kidnap victims were captured, they wouldn't be the ones you're looking for lots of crucial information from. I don't think the torture issue is a black and white issue. I do, however, think the issue of Articles III and IV of the Geneva Convention is pretty black and white.

One way to look at the Gitmo situation is that they could've ended up much worse than they are now. If they get a trial, they're still alive instead of having been shot on the spot. Would you have rather seen them lumped into a general casualty report or imprisoned in Gitmo? I'm not saying that it's a great situation but, honestly, it can't be worse than having their heads slowly sawed off and posted as internet video, can it?

Would people truly feel better if these people were released and then moved into the house next door? Are the ones imprisoned fine, upstanding members of society? Are they really our best friends? If they were moved next door to me, I would be worried that me running around with panties on my head would freak them out. I'd hate to have to give that up!!!

Damn Administration......I shouldn't have to worry that what they're doing could remove my right to run around with panties on my head!!!   
I honestly don't know why so many people seem to have a problem with it.......


----------



## KOROHO (Nov 2, 2006)

"Warner believes the administration proposal would lower the standard for the treatment of prisoners, potentially putting U.S. troops at risk should other countries retaliate."

They are already taking prisoners and cutting thier heads off, how much lower can that standard of treatment go?  

When the clinton administration scaled back military inteligence and banned agencies from sharing information, they set the stage for 9/11.  They knew about bin laden and even had him cornered once and backed off. The Sudanese had him for us and wanted to turn him over, bur clinton was playing golf and could not be bothered so they let him go.

Now, we have military and inteligence experts telling us how to avoid another 9/11 and the democrats want to stay on thier failed course.

The democrats say that listening to the phone calls of terrorists vilates thier rights.  Yet, clinton was allowed to wiretap millions of homes and that was not a violation of anyone's rights.  I just can't undertsand that one at all.  

Those same left wingers claiming President Bush is taking our rights away by going after terrorists  think nothing about turning our sovreignty over to the U.N. which beleives we have no rights at all and is run by our enemies.  Again, it's just craziness.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 2, 2006)

KOROHO said:


> They are already taking prisoners and cutting thier heads off, how much lower can that standard of treatment go?


 
Las time I checked, there is a difference between "terrorists" and "countries". 



KOROHO said:


> The democrats say that listening to the phone calls of terrorists vilates thier rights. Yet, clinton was allowed to wiretap millions of homes and that was not a violation of anyone's rights. I just can't undertsand that one at all.



Well, that seems to owe to your ignorance of the subject.

The issue is not that intelligence agencies are wiretapping American citizens. This has been done for decades. The issue is that intelligence agencies, under presidential orders, are wiretapping American citizens _without_ judicial warrants.

Under current U.S. law, that is illegal. And, if the president of the United States really did make such orders, criminal charges can be pressed against him.



KOROHO said:


> Those same left wingers claiming President Bush is taking our rights away by going after terrorists think nothing about turning our sovreignty over to the U.N. which beleives we have no rights at all and is run by our enemies.



Please explain to me how the United Nations believes we have "no rights" and is "run by our enemies". 



KOROHO said:


> Again, it's just craziness.



A very apt description of your worldview, agreed.

Laterz.


----------

