Sexual Practices at Guantanamo

[Flatlander]

So you would let an American die instead of allowing religious beliefs being used in an interrogation?

This is illogical on a couple of levels. It presumes that:

-Using psychological (religious) manipulation is necessary to extract information, of which I am skeptical,
-American lives will certainly be lost without this information, of which I believe no certainty can be held,
-The number of American lives saved with the information gained will be greater than the number lost in potential "enemy backlash" (which, of course, is impossible to quantify).

I see this (specific use of manipulation) as a severe form of psychological abuse. The religious beliefs of human beings are quite often the most sacred and foundationally important aspect of their psychological framework. To make someone believe that they are in fact unclean in the eyes of their God is to undo all the cleansing that they have ever done in their lives. The intent is to completely disrupt their psychological stability. To me, this is atrocious. But, let's put it into context. The interrogators aren't doing this to coerce, they're doing it to break the mind, and thus the will of their suspect. Now, imagine that this person has done nothing wrong, or otherwise knows nothing of use. Recall that these people are being held without charge or conviction. Why should he have had to endure this? This is punitive at its root. This is revenge, and in some circumstances, misdirected. That is an unsettling thought.

 

[Andrew Green]

So you would let an American die instead of allowing religious beliefs being used in an interrogation?

Well, under that logic aren't they justified in doing a lot worse since they're in a lot bigger danger?

Second: Under a different belief system lets do a comparisson... without biasing based on who is on who's side...

1 - Dieing for what you believe in and being rewarded for eternity for it.

2 - Being "corupted" by captors by force and suffering for eternity for it.

Who is worse off?

You can't take the moral high ground without considering the beliefs of others. Otherwise ANYONE can take the moral high ground and do whatever they feel is right, including Hitler (he's gotten a lot of "he will be brought up" and "this will lead to him" so why not ) He probably felt he was doing the "right" thing, and under his beliefs he was.

 

[Colin_Linz]

A problem I have with this discussion topic is the issue of POW's in the "War on Terrorism". Traditionally, POW's were held till the cessation of hostilities and then repatriated to their homelands. Where that point is in this "War" is uncertain. Where/when do we release these POW's?

The last I heard Bush said the war in Iraq was over. I will admit though that it still suspiciously looks like war over there. There is a big problem with just how guilty a number of these people are. This combined with a lack of legal advice and a lack of any fair hearings make me very concerned that many could have been just in a bad place at a bad time. Habib, the Australian just released after 3 years in captivity had never been charged with anything. He was illegally moved from Pakistan, and was tortured. All of this with no legal representation until just recently, and no contact with his family. He thought they had all died, because the interrogators showed him pictures of his family and told him it was unfortunate that they had to kill them.

 

[Andrew Green]

There is a big problem with just how guilty a number of these people are.

On both sides probably, War criminals loose, heros win. Until the war is over its up in the air as to who is what.

A lot of people might consider GW Bush a war criminal, after all he invaded a coountry based on non-existant weapons of mass destruction....

 

[Deuce]

This is illogical on a couple of levels. It presumes that:

-Using psychological (religious) manipulation is necessary to extract information, of which I am skeptical,
-American lives will certainly be lost without this information, of which I believe no certainty can be held,
-The number of American lives saved with the information gained will be greater than the number lost in potential "enemy backlash" (which, of course, is impossible to quantify).

This is where you're missing my point. I agree that the odds of all the above statements applying to the same situation at the same time is low. In fact, I have serious doubts that this interrogation tactic is even remotely useful at gaining intel. But that's not the point either. My question revolves around the hypothetical situation listed above, and what should be considered acceptable in that worse case scenario. Using this method would go against my values and respect of other cultures also, but in extreme situations as a last resort, the POW would be lucky if this is as bad as it gets. I'm sure there are much worse things going on more often then we would like to believe.

Now, imagine that this person has done nothing wrong, or otherwise knows nothing of use. Recall that these people are being held without charge or conviction. Why should he have had to endure this? This is punitive at its root. This is revenge, and in some circumstances, misdirected. That is an unsettling thought.

I agree with you. This interrogation tactic should not be a standard method of questioning for every POW. I'm strongly against that. But if the military has a strong suspision that this POW knows something very important and all other attempts of gaining information have failed, I would see this as a last resort and act of extreme desperation (assuming that it actually works, and is not used for the sole purpose of degradation and humiliation). But then again, I can totally see this being abused and getting out of control quite often.

 

[Makalakumu]

We keep hearing how the tortures at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo aren't as bad as the beheadings we've encountered in Iraq. Of course they aren't. But they narrow the gap...

I don't think the gap is at all narrowed in the minds of the insurgents.

One has got to ask themselves, how could someone hate so much that they would saw the head off an innocent man or women on camera and then parade it on the internet?

Would an errant bomb that blew the arms and legs off one child and killed the remainder of one's family be enough?

Personally, if that happened to me, I don't know what I would be capable of. I would be so filled with rage that reason would cease to have any meaning.

Taking this into account, I can see the beheadings as a tit for a tat....and then, if one throws the desecration of a person's personal religious beliefs into the mix, the physical, emotional, and now spiritual insults are piling.

In the end, pain is pain, death is death. No amount of rationalization on the part of the people in our country can change this fact...nor can it change the minds of those who are actually experiencing the pain and death of their husbands, wives, children, ect...

upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

Everybody has their opinions on "this wont work" and "that wont work".

How about peace? How about dropping food and medicine instead of bombs? What is there to hate about that?

How about learning as a society to live within our means...as in stopping the rape and pillaging of the third world to make a few powerful rich white men even richer and more powerful?

How about we let the local people benefit from their own natural resources and learn to live within the means of their homes?

Do we really have a right to "reform Islam by force?"

Is the "reformation of Islam by force," really the goal?

Hell no it isn't. This is about enforcing a standard of living for one people at the expense of another. Watch closely these new democracies, there are conformations that fit our national interest and those that do not. Can you guess which ones will be chosen by the people? Is that any different then what happens in our country?

In the end, I don't think anything we do will work if we do not attempt to look inward and see our part in creating this mess. We have been forcing people to do our bidding for a long time and we have cultivated the largest military force on the planet to do so. Now we contemplate torture in order to continue this practice...

None of it is okay. Absolutely none of it.

EVER.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

How about we invest in windmills so we don't have to contemplate torture?

upnorthkyosa

PS - if you disagree with something I type, how about having the courage to do it publically rather then sniping rep points... :idunno:

 

[loki09789]

How about peace? How about dropping food and medicine instead of bombs? What is there to hate about that?

How about learning as a society to live within our means...as in stopping the rape and pillaging of the third world to make a few powerful rich white men even richer and more powerful?


None of it is okay. Absolutely none of it.

EVER.

upnorthkyosa

And, since we are there, leaving these people now because it is 'better' not to be there is 'better?'

I agree, peace would be a good thing. I agree that living within our means would be a good thing...but these are abstracts that have nothing to do with what is in front of us now. They aren't solutions or alternatives. THey are 'things that people say' but have a heck of a time drawing up plans that show how we get there.

How do you suggest information is obtained from these people? If we do nothing to extract information and more and more soldiers die because of something we could have found out, is that 'better?'

I can't believe all this talk about 'peace above all' from a TKDer. Because the Koreans have always been the model of peace, love and decent treatment of soldiers/pows and such. As it stands, S.Korea is 'happier' as a free enterprise nation than N.Korea that can't even keep its citizens in basic utilities on a daily basis....

Honestly, your art is a paramilitary structure that is a variation on a military based art. Don't you find that a little ironic?

Pounding the sand with "THe world should be a better place!" is not going to do anything productive.

 

[Makalakumu]

And, since we are there, leaving these people now because it is 'better' not to be there is 'better?'

In the post directly previous, I made the point that torture is NOT going to make the situation better. In fact, violence in general, will probably backfire...as it usually does.

I agree, peace would be a good thing. I agree that living within our means would be a good thing...but these are abstracts that have nothing to do with what is in front of us now. They aren't solutions or alternatives. THey are 'things that people say' but have a heck of a time drawing up plans that show how we get there.

This summer, I worked with the man who helped create one of the Titan probes. He quit that job and took a university position in order to develop alternative energy technology. War in the middle east is not about democracy, it is about energy resources...the plans and technology are all in place...allocating a tenth of the military budget to developing this stuff would eradicate our dependence of foriegn oil.

Perhaps this would have been a more constructive response to 911? Could we expect anything different then what we have from the current administration?

People in the administration have repeatedly written that national energy resources are stabilized by a "peaceful" region (Peaceful is not free by the way). The bottom line is that we are there to secure a resource...

In the long run, you and I and the normal jane/joe will never see a return from this investment.

How do you suggest information is obtained from these people? If we do nothing to extract information and more and more soldiers die because of something we could have found out, is that 'better?'

Sure, we can refocus on the topic at hand. I only wanted to briefly share a broader perspective...which is "why discuss ways to humanely torture people in the middle east when we really don't need to be there if the first place."

I can't believe all this talk about 'peace above all' from a TKDer. Honestly, your art is a paramilitary structure that is a variation on a military based art. Don't you find that a little ironic?

If I didn't think that violence had a use from time to time, I wouldn't have dedicated so much of my life to studying it. In my art, we believe in self defense and we also believe in doing everything we can to avoid conflict. Can you honestly say that in this case, our country "went did everything in its power" to avoid conflict?

Pounding the sand with "THe world should be a better place!" is not going to do anything productive.

Perhaps, perhaps not. We are tangled in this mess right now. The good thing is that the Iraqis and the Afghanis have had elections. In my opinion, the best thing we can do now is get the hell out and focus on cutting our dependence of foriegn oil. Then we no longer have to contemplate torture...

upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

How about we invest in windmills so we don't have to contemplate torture?

whynotboth

This question is better asked in public. Why use an anonymous system of personal feedback to merely disagree? Why Not Both Windmills and Torture? There, was that so bad...

Here is a couple of counter questions...Would we have a reason to torture anyone if we had no real incentive to be where we are?

Do the terrorists "just hate us" or are they unhappy with some rather specific things?

In the end, ANY torture is not going to make this situation any better. The War on Terror is really just a war of ideas and use of torture is not helping us win any hearts and minds...

 

[Tgace]

Well since the military IS there and unless you are recommending just pulling out and leaving them to their own devices, military necessities like intelligence gathering ARE necessary, this issue is an important one...unless you want to go tilting at windmills.

 

[Makalakumu]

Well since the military IS there and unless you are recommending just pulling out and leaving them to their own devices, military necessities like intelligence gathering ARE necessary, this issue is an important one...unless you want to go tilting at windmills.

Perhaps I should quote myself...

In the end, ANY torture is not going to make this situation any better. The War on Terror is really just a war of ideas and use of torture is not helping us win any hearts and minds...

and then there is...

Perhaps, perhaps not. We are tangled in this mess right now. The good thing is that the Iraqis and the Afghanis have had elections. In my opinion, the best thing we can do now is get the hell out and focus on cutting our dependence of foriegn oil. Then we no longer have to contemplate torture...

What are we really trying to accomplish over there? Is it worth torture? Why not build windmills? They are certainly better then dog attacks or sodomizing people with broomsticks...

When our country gets to the point where we need to contemplate torture in order to further our goals, then we have made a mistake or two along the way. In my opinion, torture is simply unacceptable and we should try to avoid any path that would necessitate something so nasty becoming national policy.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Tgace]

Well if you read through all the posts (the one by the US dept of State is good), you will see that beyond the obviously wrong methods used at Abu Graib, we are trying to get to the base of intelligence gathering methods as a whole and discuss what is acceptable and what isnt...

 

[Andrew Green]

Another question might be "Is offending the religious beliefs of a good chunk of the world the way to make them less mad at you?"

And isn't that the goal in this "War on terror"? To get it so that no one is going to try and do more damage inside the States?

And the method is "Disrespect their beliefs, blow them up and take over their gov't." Wouldn't showing a little respect go a lot farther?

 

[Makalakumu]

Another question might be "Is offending the religious beliefs of a good chunk of the world the way to make them less mad at you?"

And isn't that the goal in this "War on terror"? To get it so that no one is going to try and do more damage inside the States?

And the method is "Disrespect their beliefs, blow them up and take over their gov't." Wouldn't showing a little respect go a lot farther?

:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

Well if you read through all the posts (the one by the US dept of State is good), you will see that beyond the obviously wrong methods used at Abu Graib, we are trying to get to the base of intelligence gathering methods as a whole and discuss what is acceptable and what isnt...

I did read through the posts. My thoughts on this are broader, but not totally divergent. By all means, discuss what is good torture and bad torture. When I say that ANY torture is unacceptable, THAT echoes the thoughts of many others on this thread. Taking this sentiment further and asking how we got to the point where we need to contemplate torture is where I am at in this discussion. Further, I have suggested a possibility that might allow our country to avoid torturing anyone...

 

[Tgace]

If making a POW stand at attention for 30min to an hour is torture (stress positioning) if a week to a month on 3 hrs. of sleep a day is torture, then we torture our own troops regularly.

If you take out the obvious (i.e. beatings, sex abuse, plain obvious torture..) and examine some of the psychological manipulation techniques when is it torture?

 

[Makalakumu]

If making a POW stand at attention for 30min to an hour is torture (stress positioning) if a week to a month on 3 hrs. of sleep a day is torture, then we torture our own troops regularly.

The "accepted" techniques aren't working...therefore the torture escalates. The original article described that very thing...this escalation to the "innappropriate". The Bush Administration wants wiggle room regarding the definition of torture in order to hide (or at least overlook) "escalations".

If you take out the obvious (i.e. beatings, sex abuse, plain obvious torture..) and examine some of the psychological manipulation techniques when is it torture?

Torture can be different for many people. I don't think you will get a firm definition. My question is this what happens when the "soft" torture fails? What guarentee is their that it will not escalate?

Far better to build windmills...

 

[Colin_Linz]

From a personnel perspective I don’t believe we should have ever went to Iraq. They had nothing to do with the war on terror, and we have only succeeded in tying up resources, and causing more people around the world to question our motives. Sure Saddam was a terrible leader who caused great pain and suffering to many of his people, just like a number of other leaders around the globe. There were however some positives to his rule. He allowed freedom of religion, freedom of dress, women were allowed to have careers, women were allowed to drive, women were allowed an education, a public health system and a public education system. He was also a stable power base. Now that he is gone every mad religious leader who wants control is trying to gain it. The methods used are the ones that they have experienced success with for so many years, violence. This whole campaign has been ill conceived and poorly planed. It has also clearly demonstrated the vagaries of Intel gathering