Sexual Practices at Guantanamo

[Colin_Linz]

The methods used to fight by these people should be viewed and balanced with an understanding of how there lives differ from ours. Many of them live in harsh conditions, they are used to doing the dirty work in their lives. Many of them still butcher their own food. They have little resources other than themselves to fight with. They have no smart bombs, Air Force, or vast funds to support many highly trained soldiers. When people feel desperate enough they use what is available to them. The fact that they have suicide bombers doesn’t mean they lack consideration for their lives, no one on the planet willingly kills themselves unless they have come to believe it is the only way to resolve a problem. If we are ever to win this war on terror we must start thinking why do they feel this way, and look at what we have done that may have helped create this feeling.

You may think what can I do about this? You vote, you decide who will get power. We need to do this with greater thought to how they act. They will develop policies that will get them elected. They need to be clearly guided in what you want. We need to have a greater understanding of how or actions effect those in other nations. We need to understand the predatory business practices that some international companies use to keep developing nations from developing, and clearly signal to our leaders that this should change. It wasn’t mindless hate that guided the terrorist into the twin towers, but the thought of defending their culture and counties from America’s obsession with controlling the Middle East. Please don’t take this to mean I support this action, I don’t. But it is important to try and understand the true causes of these things, wether we like the results or not. Most of you guys study a form of Budo, have you ever been taught the meaning of this? It may be good to examine it’s meaning and how this effects you at this time.

 

[Tgace]

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".

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?

Well the proper handling, as stated in the state dept. article, was an authorization process through the chain of command when specific techniques were to be used on specific subjects. The "different for different people" answer dosent work in the real world, justice is different for different people too but we are all subject to the same system. If techniques are "accepted" then they are used until policy changes. The torture cases we all object to were obviously outside stated policy. The question should be where did the system break down and what are we doing now to fix it.

 

[Makalakumu]

Well the proper handling, as stated in the state dept. article, was an authorization process through the chain of command when specific techniques were to be used on specific subjects.

Litmus test...did the process provide a bulwark against abuse? No. In fact, torture has been describe as "widespread" by numerous international agencies. Against a disciplined soldier, the techniques described as "appropriate" are probably not going to be effective. So, what happens next?

Is the need for intelligence any less? How easy is it to push the boundaries with standards that admittedly have "wiggle room"?

The "different for different people" answer dosent work in the real world, justice is different for different people too but we are all subject to the same system. If techniques are "accepted" then they are used until policy changes. The torture cases we all object to were obviously outside stated policy.

I'm not sure we can come to a concrete definition of torture. You have your view, I have mine. It is entirely possible that these two POVs cannot be consolidated and consensus may not be possible. I don't think it gets any more "real world" then that.

Personally, I think the term "torture" should be vague. I have no problem with widening the scope of things that fall under the umbrella. Why? Because I believe that it provides more protection for humans rights. However, idealistic, as it may be, my approach may not be the best approach. The Bush administration wants to do the same...for different reasons though. By keeping the term vague, less can fall underneath it...So I could be way off base.

The question should be where did the system break down and what are we doing now to fix it.

I would say that the system broke down when we went into Iraq like we did. I would say that the system broke down when we need to contemplate torture in order to achieve our goals.

 

[Makalakumu]

Most of you guys study a form of Budo, have you ever been taught the meaning of this? It may be good to examine it’s meaning and how this effects you at this time.

:asian:

 

[Melissa426]

1.Perhaps this would have been a more constructive response to 911?

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

3. In my opinion, the best thing we can do now is get the hell out and focus on cutting our dependence of foriegn oil.

1. Don't attack Afghanistan? Taliban continue to torture and kill their own people, especially women and those who don't abide by extreme Muslim fundamentalism. Al Queda continues to train terrorists with state support. John Walker Lindh continues to train for potential use as terrorist tool against his own country. Pat Tillman and many other US soldiers still alive.

Don't attack Iraq? 1400+ US military still alive. Saddam Hussein still in power. His two sons still alive and torturing folk for the fun of it. No Iraqi election.
Still have support and respect (for what its worth) of France and other "world powers."

What about the unknowns? How many more people die in further terrorist attacks that would have been foiled had we taken the path of war? Who would have been elected president based on his proven military skills and leadership and wouldn't have "just sat by and let America get attacked again.?"

2. Never say never. Maybe our gas prices will be lower. Maybe my hometown won't get blown up by a terrorist attack. No telling what will or won't affect everyday jane/joe cause the other path wasn't taken.

3. Those are both great ideas.
Peace,
Melissa

 

[shane23ss]

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.

Speaking as a prior soldier, I must agree here. Like I have said on this forum in the past, the general opinion of the US military at the time was Afghan was a just cause. Most soldiers believed in why we were there. Iraq on the other hand caused a little different reaction. Most soldiers, at the time, believed it was a "revenge" mission and didn't really agree with the action. I say "at the time" because now is different. At this point in time, many soldiers (including myself), have had close friends "fallen" on the sands of Iraq. This has changed many soldier's attitude on being there. Basically, some have changed to have their own "revenge" reasons. Some of you may say this is the wrong answer or that doesn't make it right. You are probably correct, but please, please don't put yourself in the shoes of some one who has been there unless you have yourself. Trust me, you can't "know where they are coming from" or "understand what I'm saying".

 

[Colin_Linz]

Speaking as a prior soldier, I must agree here. Like I have said on this forum in the past, the general opinion of the US military at the time was Afghan was a just cause. Most soldiers believed in why we were there. Iraq on the other hand caused a little different reaction. Most soldiers, at the time, believed it was a "revenge" mission and didn't really agree with the action. I say "at the time" because now is different. At this point in time, many soldiers (including myself), have had close friends "fallen" on the sands of Iraq. This has changed many soldier's attitude on being there. Basically, some have changed to have their own "revenge" reasons. Some of you may say this is the wrong answer or that doesn't make it right. You are probably correct, but please, please don't put yourself in the shoes of some one who has been there unless you have yourself. Trust me, you can't "know where they are coming from" or "understand what I'm saying".

It is certainly true that now we have started this mess we cannot just walk away. To do so would leave many unhealed wounds, and let the population fall prey to the various fundamentalists and power hungry people of the region. We have destroyed all their infrastructure and systems of governance. But I wouldn’t expect any rounds of applause from them if we stay. Sure Saddam is no longer there, but we have managed to kill more people there than he ever did. Sure they have just had an election, but they had little input into who they could vote for, we decided this. They all still remember vividly what our priorities were when we went there. Protecting and controlling the oil fields, don’t worry about the people.


Just as our Soldiers views are changing because of what has happened over there to friends and comrades, so too are those of the Iraqi people. We have moved from a friend offering freedom of choice, to just another power trying to force their will onto them and control what is theirs. This action is going to haunt us for many decades.

 

[Tgace]

For good or bad....this has been going on as long as there has been war. We need to try, as a civilized society, to reconcile military necessity (intel. is key to any military operations) with our societies values. Just asking a POW "please" will lenghten war, result in more dead.....however "torture" (beatings, sex abuse etc.) is wrong by our values and of limited practical value. But this is the "real world" war is ugly...how do you wage it "nicely"? Theres necessity and theres limits....apple pie and sunshine isnt in the future IMO.

 

[Makalakumu]

1. Don't attack Afghanistan? Taliban continue to torture and kill their own people, especially women and those who don't abide by extreme Muslim fundamentalism. Al Queda continues to train terrorists with state support. John Walker Lindh continues to train for potential use as terrorist tool against his own country. Pat Tillman and many other US soldiers still alive.

After Al-Qaeda attacked us, taking the fight to them made perfect sense. Self-defense right? The entire world agreed and was behind us.

Other nations began to look askance as time went on...A lot more has been tacked on to "the mission" that we haven't been told though. For instance, now our soldiers are building military bases along a line in Afghanistan that directly corresponds to the route Unocal, a US oil company, had planned a pipeline.

Word came out that our ambassadors told the Taliban to "accept our carpet of gold (the pipeline) or accept our carpet of bombs." At the very same time, we told the Indian government that we would, "have troops on the ground before the snow flies."

This is all before 911 mind you.

Don't attack Iraq? 1400+ US military still alive. Saddam Hussein still in power. His two sons still alive and torturing folk for the fun of it. No Iraqi election.

There were better and more truthful and perhaps peaceful ways of accomplishing this.

Still have support and respect (for what its worth) of France and other "world powers."

Why have our allies suddenly turned against us? Perhaps they know about something in which most Americans are totally in the dark.

Iraq is part of PNAC and if you were to look at a map, you could draw a line and connect the dots of American troops. This line passes right through Iran...which also happens to have a humongous primitive coastline on the Persian Gulf. Iran is surrounded. Very suddenly we could have troops over a rather large portion of the worlds oil reserves across three countries. Dr. Rice isn't fooling anyone.

What about the unknowns? How many more people die in further terrorist attacks that would have been foiled had we taken the path of war? Who would have been elected president based on his proven military skills and leadership and wouldn't have "just sat by and let America get attacked again.?"

Melissa, devout muslims, not just the terrorists would like us to understand a few things. First of all, the presence of troops in their holy land is an insult. Can you imagine if you had to watch someone take the cross rub it in feces day in and day out? This is how they feel, are we wrong to tell them they shouldn't feel this way, or are we mature enough to realize when we've insulted someone and work to correct it?

Another thing they are trying to tell us is to stop supporting the House of Saud. These guys make SHussein look pretty normal. They execute people in the streets. They preach a wacko sect of islam that says its legal to kill you wife and daughters if they disobay you. And, perhaps worst of all, they horde all of their countries massive oil wealth and live a lifestyle that you can't even begin to imagine. Meanwhile starvation, sickness, and poverty afflict the other 99.9% of Saudi Arabia.

The Bush Family alone has made 1.4 billion dollars off of these scoundrels. And throughout the 80's and early 90's made sure that the House of Saud was well equipped with the finest American killing technology. All popular uprisings during that time were put down brutally and most efficiently...all in the name of oil and money. Is it any wonder that muslims would ask, "freedom for who?"

Lastly, muslims living in their countries want to be free and want to benifit from their own natural resources. We have actively worked against this in the past and we are actively working against it in Iraq. Most are none too happy about our presence in Iraq and our decision to keep the country unified. The three dispirate groups would rather form three separate states where they could protect their culture and live as they choose. Why this policy of unity? History. These three cultures were forced into one country by the British. Why? Oil. In each area, there are massive reserves. Putting them all inside one border makes them easier to control. Already we are building the infrastructure to extract the oil. Already, certain people have been specifically chosen to run in the Iraqi elections...I'm sure the winner will be extremely friendly to certain US companies and their subsidaries...

2. Never say never. Maybe our gas prices will be lower. Maybe my hometown won't get blown up by a terrorist attack. No telling what will or won't affect everyday jane/joe cause the other path wasn't taken.

I'm hoping the above will show you that our current policy will only increase the likelihood of further terrorist activity. We cannot win the War on Terror by doing the same things that started the War on Terror in the first place. 911 was only one terrible event in a long string of events. American's need to pick up this string and follow the money.

3. Those are both great ideas.

I'm glad we can agree that getting out ASAP and doing everything in our power to cut our dependence of foriegn oil is a good thing. I think we need to go a step further. These people in office should never have been elected to office. The history and the conflict of interest is so mind-boggling that one can only be stunned by their hubris. We need to ask ourselves, as a country, we we haven't been told the whole truth about the War on Terror and then we need to work to correct this...if that means holding certain individuals accountable, so be it.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

For good or bad....this has been ging on as long as there has been war. We need to try, as a civilized society, to reconcile military necessity (intel. is key to any military operations) with our societies values. Just asking a POW "please" will lenghten war, result in more dead.....however "torture" (beatings, sex abuse etc.) is wrong by our values and of limited practical value. But this is the "real world" war is ugly...how do you wage it "nicely"? Theres necessity and theres limits....apple pie and sunshine isnt in the future IMO.

I think that their are much better ways to wage this war. None of them are going to be "nice" but they would eliminate the egregious abuse of power by our elected officials. In fact, they might totally avoid having to "torture" anyone...

 

[Tgace]

Its not solely about Iraq though..the way you fight fourth generation warfare IS intelligence. Rolling up terrorist cells and questioning AlQueda leadership is all tied up in this issue. Its not really about any individual theater, its about intelligence..its necessity..and the means of getting it.

Read a little about MAC-V/SOG and the Pheonix Program in Vietnam...same problems, same issues...apparently same old approach too.

 

[Makalakumu]

Its not solely about Iraq though..the way you fight fourth generation warfare IS intelligence. Rolling up terrorist cells and questioning AlQueda leadership is all tied up in this issue. Its not really about any individual theater, its about intelligence..its necessity..and the means of getting it.

Read a little about MAC-V/SOG and the Pheonix Program in Vietnam...same problems, same issues...apparently same old approach too.

Thanks for the resources, I'll check them out.

Still, the War on Terror is more about ideas then actual military action. In the end, the ideas will probably matter more. I can't see how torture is going to win any hearts and minds.

Furthermore, perhaps the best way to get intelligence is to convince people to freely give it. How is this done?

Melissa, devout muslims, not just the terrorists would like us to understand a few things. First of all, the presence of troops in their holy land is an insult. Can you imagine if you had to watch someone take the cross rub it in feces day in and day out? This is how they feel, are we wrong to tell them they shouldn't feel this way, or are we mature enough to realize when we've insulted someone and work to correct it?

Another thing they are trying to tell us is to stop supporting the House of Saud. These guys make SHussein look pretty normal. They execute people in the streets. They preach a wacko sect of islam that says its legal to kill you wife and daughters if they disobay you. And, perhaps worst of all, they horde all of their countries massive oil wealth and live a lifestyle that you can't even begin to imagine. Meanwhile starvation, sickness, and poverty afflict the other 99.9% of Saudi Arabia.

The Bush Family alone has made 1.4 billion dollars off of these scoundrels. And throughout the 80's and early 90's made sure that the House of Saud was well equipped with the finest American killing technology. All popular uprisings during that time were put down brutally and most efficiently...all in the name of oil and money. Is it any wonder that muslims would ask, "freedom for who?"

Lastly, muslims living in their countries want to be free and want to benifit from their own natural resources. We have actively worked against this in the past and we are actively working against it in Iraq. Most are none too happy about our presence in Iraq and our decision to keep the country unified. The three dispirate groups would rather form three separate states where they could protect their culture and live as they choose. Why this policy of unity? History. These three cultures were forced into one country by the British. Why? Oil. In each area, there are massive reserves. Putting them all inside one border makes them easier to control. Already we are building the infrastructure to extract the oil. Already, certain people have been specifically chosen to run in the Iraqi elections...I'm sure the winner will be extremely friendly to certain US companies and their subsidaries...

Not by continuing these policies...

upnorthkyosa

 

[mantis]

Im really confused...

We cant use Physical Torture.

We cant use Psychologial interrigation techniques.

How exactly are we supposed to get answers, ask them, and when they refuse to answer say "Oh Ok" and move on to the next guy?

Lemme tell ya... I am no expert at interigation... the list of techniques I know could fill like 1 line in a notebook, and would be considered horrific by most civilized human beings... so I have to ask...

What IS appropriate?

let me guess ur one line of techniques.. umm.. rape, and.. oh well, i ran out of words already
why dont you educate us?
let me ask you this.. would you do this stuff to animals?

 

[mantis]

we wonder why people do things to us..
what do we do to people is the question!

 

[sgtmac_46]

Technopunk ... that is a very good question. You would think that others would be asking the same thing.

And my answer will, no doubt, be less than satisfying, but perhaps will provide a starting place for further research.

A - The Federal Bureau of Investigations
B - The Central Intelligence Agency
C - The United States Military

Of these three government institutions, which have been attempting to extract intelligence from detainees? Answer - B & C

Prior to September 11, 2001, which of these government institutions were regularly involved in interrogation techniques of criminals? Answer - A

How did that work out for them? Did they stop 9/11 by doing so? How many terrorists did they capture? Very few.

How much experience do 'B' and 'C' have with getting information from unwilling detainees prior to 9/11/2001? Answer - None

A was treating it like a criminal matter....and getting nowhere.

How much input did 'B' and 'C' request from 'A' when determining which interrogation techniques are effective? Answer - None.

Could be because A was failing in the first place. Why would 'B and C' want input from those who had obviously failed at the given task in the first place?

This is not the time for 'On-The-Job-Training'. Yet that is exactly what is going on. Now, there is no doubt quite a bit of generalization in my comments here. But, it is true that the vast majority of interrogations were handled by the FBI in the past. Further, they have very little to do with the current interrogations.

I'll put Fox Muldar and Danny Scully against Donald Rumsfeld any day.

Mike

It's also not the time for "If at first you don't succeed, try, try and try again". Seems the alleged expertise of the FBI in dealing with al-Qaeda in the preceeding 10 years, FAILED to prevent or predict terrorist attacks, including 9/11. What's more, they failed to perceive the nature of the threat, and went after low-level operatives AFTER they committed a crime. That's wonderful if you chasing drug traffickers or embezzelers. It's not so good if you're looking for people who are planning on killing thousands of people.

The FBI wanted to treat terrorism like it treated white collar crime...Spend years accumulating evidence on a couple of people, then hand down indictments. Sorry, wrong answer.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I think that their are much better ways to wage this war. None of them are going to be "nice" but they would eliminate the egregious abuse of power by our elected officials. In fact, they might totally avoid having to "torture" anyone...

I'm interested in learning what ways you are referring to, specifically. Lets not answer the question with "Well, it's not..." How about an affirmative answer.

 

[heretic888]

From the October 17, 2005 issue of Newsweek:

"Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But every one of us -- every single one of us -- knew and took strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies." Arizona Sen. John McCain, a former Vietnam War POW, on the Senate's breaking with the White House and voting to limit interrogation techniques used against terror suspects.