Iraqi Prisoners Abused, Humiliated, Tortured.

[Flatlander]

Doubt arises when there is lack of certainty. Are you declaring, with certainty, that the people who are detained currently are not in any way "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"?

I don't understand how you can be certain of this.

 

[rmcrobertson]

One fears that you still are clinging to a significant inaccuracy: the notion that if one is not defined by the Geneva Accords as a POW, then there can be no question of torture.

There've been a number of posts citing the specific sections of the Accords governing treatment of enemy combatants who are not in uniform: what seems to be the problem with responding to them?

Then too, there's the astonishing notion that torture--which you concede to be typically pointless--is perfectly OK for anyone who isn't a uniformed member of an army. Uh....'scuse me, but that's precisely the sort of thing that {fill in blank with creeps of choice} used to say. "Javohl! Zere ist nein doubt zet ve vanted to torture zem!!"

It might be instructive to peruse the recently-released materials on DIA personnel and their little--adventures--with prisoners. Not last century, not in Vietnam, not in the Gulf War....this year. Beatings, burns, kidnaps, illegal "detentions," etc. etc...and threats against whistle blowers.

Not the country I grew up in, bubba. And not good to see rationalizations for the sorts of evils committed in North Korea and Iran, as well as among drug lords in Colombia...

 

[Flatlander]

Lets try this one, then,

from www.UN.org:

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 5.

• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

 

[PeachMonkey]

There is no doubt. A tiny minority of the Iraqi insurgents may have been doing the following:

This is not an accurate legal interpretation of the article. The implication is that if there is doubt as to whether the detainee was a legal prisoner of war, than that detainee is entitled to be treated as a prisoner of war until a tribunal determines their status.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Not the country I grew up in, bubba. And not good to see rationalizations for the sorts of evils committed in North Korea and Iran, as well as among drug lords in Colombia...

Apparently in this Brave New World of the Free and the Brave, Robert, it's okay to Do Unto Them As Dey Dun Unto Us.

Particularly if Dey are Swarthy and Muslim.

 

[Adept]

Doubt arises when there is lack of certainty. Are you declaring, with certainty, that the people who are detained currently are not in any way "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"?

I don't understand how you can be certain of this.

The text in its entirety continues on to state that only people who fulfill that, and the other criteria are to be considered prisoners of war. In this way, you can seperate domestic criminals from prisoners. Locking up bank robbers and murderers without a trial as prisoners of war might piss some people off.

The Iraqi insurgents, for the most part, completely disregarded the GC and are therefore not protected by it. They are classed as domestic criminals. It doesnt affect my view of their treatment, or the legality of the situation very much in either direction. I simply take issue with people blithely stating that 'Its against the Geneve Convention!"

With regards to the UN - Fair point. Not really relevant, but fair point. Again, it doesnt change the legality or my view of it one iota.

One fears that you still are clinging to a significant inaccuracy: the notion that if one is not defined by the Geneva Accords as a POW, then there can be no question of torture.

Not at all. Its a seperate, semantic debate. People say the captured insurgents are prisoners of war as outlined by the Geneva Convention when they are not. Thats all.

There've been a number of posts citing the specific sections of the Accords governing treatment of enemy combatants who are not in uniform: what seems to be the problem with responding to them?

If they are not following the criteria as listed on this page, they are domestic criminals, not prisoners of war.

Then too, there's the astonishing notion that torture--which you concede to be typically pointless--is perfectly OK for anyone who isn't a uniformed member of an army. Uh....'scuse me, but that's precisely the sort of thing that {fill in blank with creeps of choice} used to say. "Javohl! Zere ist nein doubt zet ve vanted to torture zem!!"

Hmm. I dont believe I've said that, although I have a fair number of posts on this thread, and it may have slipped past my radar. To avoid confusion in the future:

1 - My opinion. The abuse suffered by captured Iraqi insurgents at Abu Ghraib was of a minor nature, and does not make me feel sorry for them, or outraged at the abuse of their rights.

2 - My stance. Regardless of the legality, torture (using your definition, which apparently also includes legitimate interrogation techniques) can be a useful tool and may aid a country in protecting its interests.

 

[Adept]

Apparently in this Brave New World of the Free and the Brave, Robert, it's okay to Do Unto Them As Dey Dun Unto Us.

If we dont fight them in their back yard, we'll have to fight them in ours.

 

[heretic888]

If we dont fight them in their back yard, we'll have to fight them in ours.

*sigh*

I do so love the "our troops are terrorist distractors" argument.

:shrug:

 

[PeachMonkey]

I do so love the "our troops are terrorist distractors" argument.

I know you're being sarcastic, heretic, but the argument drives *me* nuts. It's the sort of schoolground argument that starts at the top of the right-wing machine to cover up mistakes, and gets repeated by people who really don't understand how much of a Real Mistake Iraq is.

Iraq isn't *distracting* terrorists; it's *creating* them.

 

[heretic888]

I know you're being sarcastic, heretic, but the argument drives *me* nuts. It's the sort of schoolground argument that starts at the top of the right-wing machine to cover up mistakes, and gets repeated by people who really don't understand how much of a Real Mistake Iraq is.

Iraq isn't *distracting* terrorists; it's *creating* them.

Ditto.

 

[Adept]

*sigh*

I do so love the "our troops are terrorist distractors" argument.

:shrug:

I'm equally as much a fan of the "If we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone" argument.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Cool. Thanks for the permission: we shall be at your door shortly, and on the grounds of national security--which we shall define, without regard to any other standards and especially not yours--we shall be, a) holding you incommunicado; b) denying you legal representation; c) keeping you in a cage; d) refusing to let your loved ones know where you are; e) stripping you naked; f) bringing in dogs; g) beating you if you squeak; h) pretending to shoot you; i) refusing to allow you to sleep; j) duct-taping you to the guy in the next cell and taking pictures; k) beating you again...and on through the alphabet.

But remember: all of this is minor. You have no beef. And since you haven't done anything wrong except piss me off, you aren't a criminal, so you aren't covered by our Constitution or our legal codes. We can do whatever we please; enjoy, enjoy.

Three smacks with a copy of Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here," for the rationalization of fascism. But remember--it's minor, and you aren't a criminal, so we can do whatever we want to you.

The actually interesting question concerns the adoption by conservatives of the situational ethics so long blamed on the left side of the political spectrum. me, I blame the rise of capitalism and Empire; anything's OK, so long as it's expedient.

Congrats on jettisoning the last thousand years of human development, in favor of the lex talionis and Nature, red in tooth and claw...

Magna Carta: "No freeman shall be...in any way destroyed..."

 

[PeachMonkey]

I'm equally as much a fan of the "If we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone" argument.

No one has actually offered up that argument in this thread, but all the same, I can understand why it frustrates you.

 

[Adept]

But remember: all of this is minor. You have no beef. And since you haven't done anything wrong except piss me off, you aren't a criminal, so you aren't covered by our Constitution or our legal codes. We can do whatever we please; enjoy, enjoy.

Three smacks with a copy of Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here," for the rationalization of fascism. But remember--it's minor, and you aren't a criminal, so we can do whatever we want to you.

Your point is?

The actually interesting question concerns the adoption by conservatives of the situational ethics so long blamed on the left side of the political spectrum. me, I blame the rise of capitalism and Empire; anything's OK, so long as it's expedient.

No, anything is OK as long as it generates the best possible result.

Congrats on jettisoning the last thousand years of human development, in favor of the lex talionis and Nature, red in tooth and claw...

What particular advancement would that be?

No one has actually offered up that argument in this thread, but all the same, I can understand why it frustrates you.

It is the opposite argument to the 'soldiers are terrorist distractors'. The bottom line is, no matter what we do people will be trying to kill us, just because we are western and non-islamic. If our soldiers do not fight them in their countries, they will have to fight them in our countries. I know where I would rather the war be.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

No, anything is OK as long as it generates the best possible result.

And how exactly is physically and psychologically beating the **** out of detainees for the purpose of extracting unreliable information the best possible result?

 

[Adept]

And how exactly is physically and psychologically beating the **** out of detainees for the purpose of extracting unreliable information the best possible result?

It isn't really. It generated large amounts of ill-will for the western nations, and brought us into disrepute.

I'll repeat myself from a previous post:

1 - My opinion. The abuse suffered by captured Iraqi insurgents at Abu Ghraib was of a minor nature, and does not make me feel sorry for them, or outraged at the abuse of their rights.

2 - My stance. Regardless of the legality, torture can be a useful tool and may aid a country in protecting its interests.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

2 - My stance. Regardless of the legality, torture can be a useful tool and may aid a country in protecting its interests.

But most people in the know readily admit that torture *doesn't work* - it is not a "useful tool".

 

[Adept]

But most people in the know readily admit that torture *doesn't work* - it is not a "useful tool".

By torture I was referring to it in the sense Robert does, which includes sleep deprivation, chemical treatment, mental disruption, and other very useful interrogation techniques.

More blatant forms of turture are rarely useful, but I would not say they never are. Jumping to what some would call the lifeboat example -

You have a captive in custody who has information that could prevent the 9/11 attacks. If you do nothing, 3000 people die. You have 36 hours to act. What will you do?

My point is not that torture is always useful, but that it can be under the right circumstances.

 

[Flatlander]

By torture I was referring to it in the sense Robert does, which includes sleep deprivation, chemical treatment, mental disruption, and other very useful interrogation techniques.

More blatant forms of turture are rarely useful, but I would not say they never are. Jumping to what some would call the lifeboat example -

You have a captive in custody who has information that could prevent the 9/11 attacks. If you do nothing, 3000 people die. You have 36 hours to act. What will you do?

My point is not that torture is always useful, but that it can be under the right circumstances.

According to whom? I'm actually quite skeptical that there can be any credibilty given to information derived from torture. So, what makes you think it works? What do you have to support your proposition? It seems to me that, given the nature of the act, one ought have fairly unwavering justification to use this technique, so, what is it?

 

[heretic888]

I'm equally as much a fan of the "If we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone" argument.

No offense, but I see this response as symptomatic of a need to see the world in rigidly black and white terms.

I do indeed think we should be "tough on terrorism". Problem is, we haven't done this in over two years. And, what's worse, the place where we were doing it, we've pretty much ignored and forgotten.

Cheers.