Post by: geronimotwo on December 14, 2007, 01:57:45 AM
here, i would like to discuss whether a nation who does not use methods of torture would be able to maintain national security?
would it be worth maintaining that high road if it meant more troops or civilians died from lack of intelligence?
Post by: HankB on December 14, 2007, 04:17:29 AM
. . . would it be worth maintaining that high road if it meant more troops or civilians died from lack of intelligence? . . .
People who insist that we follow the high road without deviation, at any cost . . . are seldom the ones who will be paying that cost.Clearly, people who like torture are twisted . . . but there's something really wrong with the mindset of the person who is willing to let Americans die because they insist on good treatment for captured jihadis.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 14, 2007, 08:05:34 AM
. . . would it be worth maintaining that high road if it meant more troops or civilians died from lack of intelligence? . . .
People who insist that we follow the high road without deviation, at any cost . . . are seldom the ones who will be paying that cost.Clearly, people who like torture are twisted . . . but there's something really wrong with the mindset of the person who is willing to let Americans die because they insist on good treatment for captured jihadis.
Cue the caterwauling in three... two...
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 14, 2007, 08:09:59 AM
i started a different thread that quickly turned into a discussion of waterboarding, and the legality of torture.
here, i would like to discuss whether a nation who does not use methods of torture would be able to maintain national security?
would it be worth maintaining that high road if it meant more troops or civilians died from lack of intelligence?
here, i would like to discuss whether a nation who does not use methods of torture would be able to maintain national security?
would it be worth maintaining that high road if it meant more troops or civilians died from lack of intelligence?
Yes. We are not them. We are not animals. We don't kill women and children intentionally, nor do we pull people's fingernails out or execute prisoners.
IF WE SELL OUT THE MORAL FABRIC OF OUR SOCIETY, THEN WHAT IN THE HELL ARE WE FIGHTING FOR?
Post by: Paddy on December 14, 2007, 08:25:05 AM
Quote
but there's something really wrong with the mindset of the person who is willing to let Americans die because they insist on good treatment for captured jihadis.
Give it up. That tired old fearmongering isn't selling anymore.
Quote
IF WE SELL OUT THE MORAL FABRIC OF OUR SOCIETY, THEN WHAT IN THE HELL ARE WE FIGHTING FOR?
Exactly right. We don't defeat the enemy by becoming just like him.
Post by: HankB on December 14, 2007, 08:36:54 AM
. . . We don't defeat the enemy by becoming just like him.
I don't recall anyone suggesting we saw people's heads off with a dull knife and make the videos public, so we would not become ". . . just like him."
Post by: Len Budney on December 14, 2007, 09:12:33 AM
I don't recall anyone suggesting we saw people's heads off with a dull knife and make the videos public, so we would not become ". . . just like him."
Yup. We may torture the innocent along with the guilty--but there are still superficial differences between us and those guys who also torture innocents. So we're nothing like them.
--Len.
Post by: roo_ster on December 14, 2007, 09:41:26 AM
How many folks think Nick Berg would have preferred the latter to the former?
* But, then, those folks are not anarcho-whateverists and actually have a love of country...something that would be non-existent in the anarcho-loquatious utopia to come.
Post by: Len Budney on December 14, 2007, 09:47:02 AM
Len, maybe YOU think the difference between sawing someone's head off and waterboarding (or other vigorous interrogation techniques) is superficial. Most rational folks think otherwise.
Of course not. But you seem to think that torturing innocent people until they've lost their marbles is OK, because it's not <insert something "they" do here>. The argument is completely bogus. I can rob your house, because at least I'm not beheading you with a rusty machete? I can beat up your kids and shave your cats, because at least I'm not beheading you with a rusty machete? Indeed, I can do anything I want to to you and yours, as long as (1) nobody dies and (2) I don't use a rusty machete?
Your morality bar is set incredibly low. I can think of a hell of a lot of things that don't cause death or involve rusty machetes. By your standard, that makes me a good and moral person.
--Len.
Post by: HankB on December 14, 2007, 10:11:34 AM
. . . you seem to think that torturing innocent people until they've lost their marbles is OK, because it's not <insert something "they" do here>. The argument is completely bogus.
Captured Al-Qaeda jihadis like Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah are not innocent people, nor have I seen anyone advocate waterboarding innocent people, making this line of argument completely bogus.As to the circumstances . . . war is hell . . . and if anyone can provide information on how a country - any country - ever WON a major shooting war without doing some bad things, I'd like to hear it.
Post by: grampster on December 14, 2007, 10:12:55 AM
Some of you act as if our nation has throughout our history never had to resort to extraordinary techniques under extraordinary circumstances. The difference between them and us is that we have never made a practice in continuing those techniques when they became unnecessary. The classic example of the lame slippery slope thinking is the use of nuclear weapons against Japan. Extraordinary circumstance called for an extraordinary act. Seems like we haven't exactly used that technique again.
Post by: Len Budney on December 14, 2007, 10:55:09 AM
I don't recollect anyone promoting the torture of innocents. Just because there is a slope, does not always mean it will become slippery.
I'm NOT making a slippery slope argument. I'm specifically saying that some of the detainees at Gitmo are completely innocent, but nevertheless are subject to "aggressive interrogation methods." The US tortures accused and suspected terrorists, not convicted terrorists, and they aren't all guilty. They're doing that TODAY.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on December 14, 2007, 11:13:58 AM
. . . We don't defeat the enemy by becoming just like him.
I don't recall anyone suggesting we saw people's heads off with a dull knife and make the videos public, so we would not become ". . . just like him."So you're saying our moral standards of what we will and will not do, are set by someone else's actions? IOW, as long as our actions aren't as egregious as theirs, everything's a-ok? This kind of 'sliding-scale relative morality makes sense to you?
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 14, 2007, 11:31:10 AM
. . . you seem to think that torturing innocent people until they've lost their marbles is OK, because it's not <insert something "they" do here>. The argument is completely bogus.
Captured Al-Qaeda jihadis like Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah are not innocent people, nor have I seen anyone advocate waterboarding innocent people, making this line of argument completely bogus.As to the circumstances . . . war is hell . . . and if anyone can provide information on how a country - any country - ever WON a major shooting war without doing some bad things, I'd like to hear it.
Is what he said.
You're operating under the assumption that the government, the same government that coldn't see 9/11 coming, that couldn't catch a 6'9" raghead, that screwed up the occupation of Iraq, that can't seem to shut down the Taliban....the assumption that that same, inept government will never arrest any innocent people. Nor that they will ever torture innocent people.
Even if we caught OBL in the flesh, I'd demand that he not be tortured. He should be tried for his crimes.
Alot of people agreed with Stalin, Hitler, PolPot, Lenin, Hussein, and Bin Laden. That doesn't make them right, nor does it make you right.
Quote
So you're saying our moral standards of what we will and will not do, are set by someone else's actions? IOW, as long as our actions aren't as egregious as theirs, everything's a-ok? This kind of 'sliding-scale relative morality makes sense to you?
Its the slippery slope. First we only torture them a little bit. Then we miss the warning signs of another attack, so we torture a little more. But hey, nobody got beheaded with a rusty Machette......
Post by: Manedwolf on December 14, 2007, 12:47:43 PM
I've always felt it'd be wiser to use psychology, to just mess them up a bit with varied false day/night cycles and all that sort of thing till they lose control of their own judgment and babble the facts, or to trick people into saying too much by inserting double agents among the population.
Cell with glass ceiling and people taking notes and making the "sun" rise and set every time they doze off for five minutes, that sort of psyops, maybe get them to babble in their sleep from lack of REM. Even mess up their judgment, then put them in a recreation of their homeland and try to convince them they're free and had a flashback, get them to talk. Whatever. Not waterboarding so much.
Eh.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 14, 2007, 01:15:06 PM
The one, biggest problem with torture is that it just doesn't yield good results. If someone is experiencing duress, they're likely to tell you anything you want to make you stop doing that to them.
I've always felt it'd be wiser to use psychology, to just mess them up a bit with varied false day/night cycles and all that sort of thing till they lose control of their own judgment and babble the facts, or to trick people into saying too much by inserting double agents among the population.
Cell with glass ceiling and people taking notes and making the "sun" rise and set every time they doze off for five minutes, that sort of psyops, maybe get them to babble in their sleep from lack of REM. Even mess up their judgment, then put them in a recreation of their homeland and try to convince them they're free and had a flashback, get them to talk. Whatever. Not waterboarding so much.
Eh.
First, waterboarding has proven extremely effective the few times its been employed. A skilled interrogator isn't going to be fed a bill of goods and believe it's true, regardless of what technique he's using. I've always felt it'd be wiser to use psychology, to just mess them up a bit with varied false day/night cycles and all that sort of thing till they lose control of their own judgment and babble the facts, or to trick people into saying too much by inserting double agents among the population.
Cell with glass ceiling and people taking notes and making the "sun" rise and set every time they doze off for five minutes, that sort of psyops, maybe get them to babble in their sleep from lack of REM. Even mess up their judgment, then put them in a recreation of their homeland and try to convince them they're free and had a flashback, get them to talk. Whatever. Not waterboarding so much.
Eh.
Second, screwing with peoples' heads as you suggest seems every bit as "mean" as waterboarding. Warping someone's reality until they can't tell what continent they're on actually seems worse than 10 minutes of safe and temporary discomfort. Depending upon how you define "torture", your suggestion might actually be more torturous than waterboarding.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 14, 2007, 01:16:54 PM
Or does that violate Geneva?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 14, 2007, 01:25:28 PM
I don't recollect anyone promoting the torture of innocents. Just because there is a slope, does not always mean it will become slippery.
I'm NOT making a slippery slope argument. I'm specifically saying that some of the detainees at Gitmo are completely innocent, but nevertheless are subject to "aggressive interrogation methods." The US tortures accused and suspected terrorists, not convicted terrorists, and they aren't all guilty. They're doing that TODAY.
--Len.
They are all guilty. Provably guilty. Else they wouldn't be there. Your fantasy notion that people are randomly rounded up and thrown into Gitmo and tortured for no reason, with no court sanction or oversight or or legal basis, is flat out wrong.
Post by: grampster on December 14, 2007, 01:29:45 PM
I don't recollect anyone promoting the torture of innocents. Just because there is a slope, does not always mean it will become slippery.
I'm NOT making a slippery slope argument. I'm specifically saying that some of the detainees at Gitmo are completely innocent, but nevertheless are subject to "aggressive interrogation methods." The US tortures accused and suspected terrorists, not convicted terrorists, and they aren't all guilty. They're doing that TODAY.
--Len.
"are completely innocent..." and you know that, how?
It's real easy for us to sit here and prejudge, second guess, or conclude that because of one thing, another will surely follow. The rules have changed and we didn't change them. Our national security is much harder to secure today because of technology and transportation. We are not threatened so much by a competing nation than a competing barbarian that worships death. It also doesn't help that both political parties see that porous borders are a pathway to money and power rather than the key to our security.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on December 14, 2007, 01:37:14 PM
Quote
They are all guilty. Provably guilty. Else they wouldn't be there. Your fantasy notion that people are randomly rounded up and thrown into Gitmo and tortured for no reason, with no court sanction or oversight or or legal basis, is flat out wrong.
They aren't guilty until proven so, in a court of law. I think that comes from one of our founding documents.
Post by: roo_ster on December 14, 2007, 01:53:00 PM
So, you think we ought to change the rifle platoon MTOE to include a defense lawyer to read enemy combatants (lawful & otherwise) their Miranda rights and to be their advocate from the minute we snatch the RPG from their hand?
The lawyerization of our society is near complete when you can't wage war without a lawyer on your back and the folks back home so clueless as to think it is the proper way to do things.
Len:
Your response belongs in a work of hysterical fiction. Poor, old Kalid Sheik Mohammed was an innocent bystander just caught up in the merciless grip of OD-wearing JBTs.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on December 14, 2007, 01:57:43 PM
dasmi:
So, you think we ought to change the rifle platoon MTOE to include a defense lawyer to read enemy combatants (lawful & otherwise) their Miranda rights and to be their advocate from the minute we snatch the RPG from their hand?
The lawyerization of our society is near complete when you can't wage war without a lawyer on your back and the folks back home so clueless as to think it is the proper way to do things.
No, of course not. But I do think once a person has been detained, they deserve a trial. Especially if they are to be detained indefinitely.
So, you think we ought to change the rifle platoon MTOE to include a defense lawyer to read enemy combatants (lawful & otherwise) their Miranda rights and to be their advocate from the minute we snatch the RPG from their hand?
The lawyerization of our society is near complete when you can't wage war without a lawyer on your back and the folks back home so clueless as to think it is the proper way to do things.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on December 14, 2007, 02:03:29 PM
I realize, and I'm ok with, people being detained on the battlefield. It's war, people are going to get scooped up and checked out.
But, when someone is taken to a place like Guantanamo and held against their will, they ought to have a trial.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 14, 2007, 02:09:44 PM
you miss ww2 history?!
"But, when someone is taken to a place like Guantanamo and held against their will, they ought to have a trial"
why? do we have a prededent for trials for prisoners of war?
Post by: ilbob on December 14, 2007, 03:09:22 PM
I don't recollect anyone promoting the torture of innocents. Just because there is a slope, does not always mean it will become slippery.
I'm NOT making a slippery slope argument. I'm specifically saying that some of the detainees at Gitmo are completely innocent, but nevertheless are subject to "aggressive interrogation methods." The US tortures accused and suspected terrorists, not convicted terrorists, and they aren't all guilty. They're doing that TODAY.
--Len.
Post by: ilbob on December 14, 2007, 03:12:00 PM
dasmi:
So, you think we ought to change the rifle platoon MTOE to include a defense lawyer to read enemy combatants (lawful & otherwise) their Miranda rights and to be their advocate from the minute we snatch the RPG from their hand?
The lawyerization of our society is near complete when you can't wage war without a lawyer on your back and the folks back home so clueless as to think it is the proper way to do things.
No, of course not. But I do think once a person has been detained, they deserve a trial. Especially if they are to be detained indefinitely. So, you think we ought to change the rifle platoon MTOE to include a defense lawyer to read enemy combatants (lawful & otherwise) their Miranda rights and to be their advocate from the minute we snatch the RPG from their hand?
The lawyerization of our society is near complete when you can't wage war without a lawyer on your back and the folks back home so clueless as to think it is the proper way to do things.
And since so many of you want to give them POW status, if you did that, there is never a trial until the war is over. It may well be decades before we defeat radical Islam.
Post by: Len Budney on December 14, 2007, 04:09:40 PM
I don't recollect anyone promoting the torture of innocents. Just because there is a slope, does not always mean it will become slippery.
I'm NOT making a slippery slope argument. I'm specifically saying that some of the detainees at Gitmo are completely innocent, but nevertheless are subject to "aggressive interrogation methods." The US tortures accused and suspected terrorists, not convicted terrorists, and they aren't all guilty. They're doing that TODAY.
"are completely innocent..." and you know that, how?
Because even the United States admitted they were innocent, and eventually released them.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on December 14, 2007, 04:10:50 PM
Len: Your response belongs in a work of hysterical fiction. Poor, old Kalid Sheik Mohammed was an innocent bystander just caught up in the merciless grip of OD-wearing JBTs.
You might want to study up on the difference between "there are innocent people at Gitmo" and "everyone at Gitmo is innocent."
Post by: Len Budney on December 14, 2007, 04:13:36 PM
'm specifically saying that some of the detainees at Gitmo are completely innocent, but nevertheless are subject to "aggressive interrogation methods." The US tortures accused and suspected terrorists, not convicted terrorists, and they aren't all guilty. They're doing that TODAY.
Innocent of what? Just because they have not been convicted of anything does not make them innocent.
You mean, "They may not be terrorists, enemy combatants or anything else, but by golly they must be guilty of something!"
See my previous reply. The United States has admitted that some of them are innocent, and released them. Since they're held without charges or any other sort of due process, we can be certain that other mistakes have also been made.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on December 14, 2007, 04:21:58 PM
Quote
And since so many of you want to give them POW status, if you did that, there is never a trial until the war is over. It may well be decades before we defeat radical Islam.
It amazes me that some people still buy this fearmongering crap. They got lucky once because we totally ignored all the warnings, that's all. 'Radical Islam' is a small, small minority of Islam worldwide. There is no justification for this country to engage in any of this 'detainee' crap. We're better than that. Unfortunately, we have a couple of knuckledragging slopeheads in the executive branch that either believe their propoganda, or are using this opportunity to ripoff hundreds of billions of $ from the public treasury.
In any event, this administration will go down in history as the most corrupt criminal enterprise ever to seize control of a democracy. Thankfully, it will all be over by January 20, 2009.
And I predict that when GWB and Cheney die, the location of their graves will remain secret, because future generations will dig up their sorry rotting carcasses and hang them.
Post by: RevDisk on December 14, 2007, 08:49:36 PM
. . . would it be worth maintaining that high road if it meant more troops or civilians died from lack of intelligence? . . .
People who insist that we follow the high road without deviation, at any cost . . . are seldom the ones who will be paying that cost.Clearly, people who like torture are twisted . . . but there's something really wrong with the mindset of the person who is willing to let Americans die because they insist on good treatment for captured jihadis.
Sigh. Ask the Soviet Union if torture and genocide will preserve a country. In the short run, yes. In the long run, obviously not.
Folks always pull out the "24" style ticking bomb situation as a justification. If our government showed very clearly such acts were reserved exclusively for such situations, most Americans would be understanding. However, statistics unfortunately do not show that. Gitmo allegedly had a total of 775 detainees, 355 detainees currently. 420 have been released. The DoD has admitted they only plan on bringing less than a 100 to trial, more likely 60 to 80. The rest are scheduled for release. Someday. So roughly 1 in 10 are seen as too dangerous to be released. I'm failing to see "something really wrong" with questioning the need for routine torture if there is a 90% of innocence. If the numbers were flipped, you'd have a case to make an argument.
Harsh interrogation techniques are one thing. Scarring someone for life with electroshock, sensory deprivation, sexual molestation, etc when our government has proven that the overwhelming majority of detainees are being released? First off, anyone who sexually abuses a prisoner needs to be shot. Period. Sorry I seem twitchy on the subject, but I know some rape survivors. There is no justification for it, regardless of ANY circumstances. The rest, might be justified under extreme circumstances. EXTREME circumstances, not routine pickups.
Do me a favor and drop the sensationalist fearmongering. Extreme cases such as the 'ticking bomb' example are very, very rare. You'd be hard pressed to find more than two such cases in a decade. The very common example is a local rat narcing out someone he has a personal grudge against. Or mistaken identity. Those happen a dozen times a day. Please explain how torture is justified with those far more common scenerios?
Post by: Scott on December 14, 2007, 09:45:25 PM
How about playing Barry Manilow records 24/7 until they talk?
That was completely unneccessary and in bad taste. What next Liberace? The horrors.
Post by: drewtam on December 15, 2007, 11:21:08 AM
Folks always pull out the "24" style ticking bomb situation as a justification. If our government showed very clearly such acts were reserved exclusively for such situations, most Americans would be understanding. However, statistics unfortunately do not show that. Gitmo allegedly had a total of 775 detainees, 355 detainees currently. 420 have been released. The DoD has admitted they only plan on bringing less than a 100 to trial, more likely 60 to 80. The rest are scheduled for release. Someday. So roughly 1 in 10 are seen as too dangerous to be released. I'm failing to see "something really wrong" with questioning the need for routine torture if there is a 90% of innocence.
I challenge you to read Micheal Yon's reporting and field analysis copied below and still tell me these folks are innocent. Just because they are released DOES NOT mean they are "innocent".
For the record, I am against any sort of torture; it is against the very nature of who we are. It is the reason why we have a
"cruel and unusual punishment" clause in our Constitution. I think George Washington said something like "We might not win our fight, but will battle in such a way that we deserve to win."
I will always support taking the high ground. When it comes to surrendered captives.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/gates-of-fire.htm
Quote
The doctors rolled LTC Kurilla and the terrorist into OR and our surgeons operated on both at the same time. The terrorist turned out to be one Khalid Jasim Nohe, who had first been captured by US forces (2-8 FA) on 21 December, the same day a large bomb exploded in the dining facility on this base and killed 22 people.
That December day, Khalid Jasim Nohe and two compatriots tried to evade US soldiers from 2-8 FA, but the soldiers managed to stop the fleeing car. Then one of the suspects tried to wrestle a weapon from a soldier before all three were detained. They were armed with a sniper rifle, an AK, pistols, a silencer, explosives and other weapons, and had in their possession photographs of US bases, including a map of this base.
That was in December.
About two weeks ago, word came that Nohes case had been dismissed by a judge on 7 August. The Coalition was livid. According to American officers, solid cases are continually dismissed without apparent cause. Whatever the reason, the result was that less than two weeks after his release from Abu Ghraib, Nohe was back in Mosul shooting at American soldiers.
LTC Kurilla repeatedly told me of - and I repeatedly wrote about - terrorists who get released only to cause more trouble. Kurilla talked about it almost daily. Apparently, the vigor of his protests had made him an opponent of some in the Armys Detention Facilities chain of command, but had otherwise not changed the policy. And now Kurilla lay shot and in surgery in the same operating room with one of the catch-and-release-terrorists he and other soldiers had been warning everyone about.
That December day, Khalid Jasim Nohe and two compatriots tried to evade US soldiers from 2-8 FA, but the soldiers managed to stop the fleeing car. Then one of the suspects tried to wrestle a weapon from a soldier before all three were detained. They were armed with a sniper rifle, an AK, pistols, a silencer, explosives and other weapons, and had in their possession photographs of US bases, including a map of this base.
That was in December.
About two weeks ago, word came that Nohes case had been dismissed by a judge on 7 August. The Coalition was livid. According to American officers, solid cases are continually dismissed without apparent cause. Whatever the reason, the result was that less than two weeks after his release from Abu Ghraib, Nohe was back in Mosul shooting at American soldiers.
LTC Kurilla repeatedly told me of - and I repeatedly wrote about - terrorists who get released only to cause more trouble. Kurilla talked about it almost daily. Apparently, the vigor of his protests had made him an opponent of some in the Armys Detention Facilities chain of command, but had otherwise not changed the policy. And now Kurilla lay shot and in surgery in the same operating room with one of the catch-and-release-terrorists he and other soldiers had been warning everyone about.
Post by: Joe Demko on December 15, 2007, 11:40:09 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on December 15, 2007, 03:12:03 PM
It must be nice to be able to cloak sadism in patriotism and not have to feel so...dirty.
The people who risk their lives each and every day to keep your comfortable nation and neighborhood safe...do a lot of things that you might find distateful. A lot of things that will probably be with them for the rest of their lives, too.
You're here, in a safe, comfortable country, where the lights are on, the water runs clean, and the police will come if you call...and not shake you down for a bribe. And they're out there on the ragged edge, dealing with people, no, not even people, but animals who would saw someone's head off with a dull machete without hesitation. They get to see what those animals do to the innocent civilians over there, too. Things that don't happen here.
Be thankful. And grateful.
Bad things happen in wars. Things nobody wants to talk about or think about. And that's just reality.
Post by: Len Budney on December 15, 2007, 03:15:32 PM
The people who risk their lives each and every day to keep your comfortable nation and neighborhood safe...do a lot of things that you might find distateful.
Bleah. They're making me less safe, not more safe, and I never asked them to. It's not only dishonest, it's insulting, to suggest that I'm in any way to blame for deploying them in an aggressive, expensive and counter-productive war.
Quote
A lot of things that will probably be with them for the rest of their lives, too.
Since you do support deploying them in a counter-productive war of aggression, I hope that rests on your conscience. They're being scarred for life in order to make nobody any safer.
--Len.
Post by: De Selby on December 15, 2007, 04:24:03 PM
Reminds me of a class vote I once saw on whether or not the Korematsu case (allowing the US military to arrest and intern people based on race alone) was rightly decided-after about 20 percent said yes, the prof noted that before September 11th you'd be lucky to find even one person who thought it was rightly decided.
Sad times indeed.
Post by: grampster on December 15, 2007, 05:35:05 PM
It constantly amazes me how some people can stand in the middle of a herd of cows and cry "Where's the beef."
Post by: RevDisk on December 15, 2007, 05:49:16 PM
Folks always pull out the "24" style ticking bomb situation as a justification. If our government showed very clearly such acts were reserved exclusively for such situations, most Americans would be understanding. However, statistics unfortunately do not show that. Gitmo allegedly had a total of 775 detainees, 355 detainees currently. 420 have been released. The DoD has admitted they only plan on bringing less than a 100 to trial, more likely 60 to 80. The rest are scheduled for release. Someday. So roughly 1 in 10 are seen as too dangerous to be released. I'm failing to see "something really wrong" with questioning the need for routine torture if there is a 90% of innocence.
I challenge you to read Micheal Yon's reporting and field analysis copied below and still tell me these folks are innocent. Just because they are released DOES NOT mean they are "innocent".
For the record, I am against any sort of torture; it is against the very nature of who we are. It is the reason why we have a
"cruel and unusual punishment" clause in our Constitution. I think George Washington said something like "We might not win our fight, but will battle in such a way that we deserve to win."
I will always support taking the high ground. When it comes to surrendered captives.
My apologies. I meant legally found 'innocent', or at least not guilty enough to convict. Lot of bad people here in the US walk too.
Post by: MechAg94 on December 15, 2007, 06:26:48 PM
German POW's were detained in Texas without a trial also. I guess they weren't considered "detainees".
Personally, I don't have a problem with drawing a line against torture, but some of the rhetoric and witch hunts go too far. I remember the story about that officer who fired his pistol next to the head of a captured insurgent. I think he was finally allowed to retire with rank after it became public, but I can't remember.
Post by: De Selby on December 15, 2007, 06:35:52 PM
My main issue is that these days people define torture as sneezing in the same building as the "detainees".
German POW's were detained in Texas without a trial also. I guess they weren't considered "detainees".
Personally, I don't have a problem with drawing a line against torture, but some of the rhetoric and witch hunts go too far. I remember the story about that officer who fired his pistol next to the head of a captured insurgent. I think he was finally allowed to retire with rank after it became public, but I can't remember.
German POW's were detained in Texas without a trial also. I guess they weren't considered "detainees".
Personally, I don't have a problem with drawing a line against torture, but some of the rhetoric and witch hunts go too far. I remember the story about that officer who fired his pistol next to the head of a captured insurgent. I think he was finally allowed to retire with rank after it became public, but I can't remember.
Holding them as POW's is fine-indeed, most of the "bleeding hearts" are crying out for holding these folks as POW's, and that's what most of the international outcry demands.
Indefinite detention with no rights to be visited by anyone, including the red cross, in a "war on terror" that ends not with any defined goal or defeat of a particular country isn't POW status though. The Germans in WWII were being treated like guests of honor at the Hilton in comparison to what the gitmo detainees get.
If they're crooks, they deserve punishment. But it needs to be proven that they're crooks.
If they're POW's, they should be treated like POW's.
What's going on now is an attempt to punish them criminally, using only the same procedures (or usually fewer procedures) that would apply to making someone a POW.
Post by: Len Budney on December 15, 2007, 07:09:52 PM
My main issue is that these days people define torture as sneezing in the same building as the "detainees".
Straw man. We're talking about water-boarding, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, extremes of heat and cold--but not "sneezing in the same building."
Post by: Joe Demko on December 16, 2007, 03:54:59 AM
Post by: gunsmith on December 16, 2007, 01:09:42 PM
Quote
How about playing Barry Manilow records 24/7 until they talk?
I would rather be waterboarded!
Post by: roo_ster on December 16, 2007, 05:52:44 PM
If they're crooks, they deserve punishment. But it needs to be proven that they're crooks.
If they're POW's, they should be treated like POW's.
They are not POWs, the vast majority are unlawful combatants. Anything better than a round in their skull at apprehension is better than they deserve and are due under the conventions.If they're POW's, they should be treated like POW's.
The conventions the USA signed on to had both carrot and stick: treat others' combatants well and don't do things contrary to the conventions or laws of war, and you'll be treated well. Do otherwise, and no protections are due.
Post by: De Selby on December 16, 2007, 06:03:15 PM
If they're crooks, they deserve punishment. But it needs to be proven that they're crooks.
If they're POW's, they should be treated like POW's.
They are not POWs, the vast majority are unlawful combatants. Anything better than a round in their skull at apprehension is better than they deserve and are due under the conventions.If they're POW's, they should be treated like POW's.
The conventions the USA signed on to had both carrot and stick: treat others' combatants well and don't do things contrary to the conventions or laws of war, and you'll be treated well. Do otherwise, and no protections are due.
Unlawful combatant=criminal. It's a crime; that's why they have to give them some sort of process (at a minimum, military tribunal) to determine if they are in fact unlawful combatants. And if they're unlawful combatants, they are entitled to be tried for crimes committed in the course of their unlawful combat activity.
There's no precedent in American law or western custom for labelling someone a criminal without any process whatsoever; there's no such thing as a crime that can be proved summarily by the executive branch.
Post by: Paddy on December 16, 2007, 06:03:28 PM
Quote
They are not POWs, the vast majority are unlawful combatants.
What the hell are 'unlawful combatants', anyway? I don't remember hearing that term before GWB decided he wanted to avoid laws and treaties by calling anybody he chose to 'detain' as such.
Post by: Finch on December 16, 2007, 08:19:01 PM
What the hell are 'unlawful combatants', anyway?
Just another cute little catch phrase engineered to facilitate the willing sacrifice of freedom for perceived security. Kind of like "They Hate us For Our Freedoms" "Fundamental Islamic Extremists" and the all time Guiliani favorite - "Islamofacist".
Post by: brer on December 16, 2007, 11:33:02 PM
There are several of us here that also fought to ensure that everyone was safe and comfy back home. Quite a few of us are very unconfortable with the actions that are happening in our countries name.
The government and its agents betraying the fundamental principals under which we swore to is not going to serve our country best in the long run. That is a truthism. If we fall into torture as a matter of policy, we can expect it from our government soon enough.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 16, 2007, 11:34:59 PM
Get off of your high horse ManedWolf.
There are several of us here that also fought to ensure that everyone was safe and comfy back home. Quite a few of us are very unconfortable with the actions that are happening in our countries name.
The government and its agents betraying the fundamental principals under which we swore to is not going to serve our country best in the long run. That is a truthism. If we fall into torture as a matter of policy, we can expect it from our government soon enough.
There are several of us here that also fought to ensure that everyone was safe and comfy back home. Quite a few of us are very unconfortable with the actions that are happening in our countries name.
The government and its agents betraying the fundamental principals under which we swore to is not going to serve our country best in the long run. That is a truthism. If we fall into torture as a matter of policy, we can expect it from our government soon enough.
Please provide definitive proof that this is happening. Because all I've seen is fearmongering about our government. Oh, yeah, and a lot of supposition from black-helicopter sites, and rhetoric from Kos Kids...in between their pro-Hezbollah rallies.
Or did you come here right from there, perhaps? Gotta wonder with an early post that presumptuous.
Proof? Provide it.
And:
Quote
That is a truthism troofism.
FTFY.
Post by: brer on December 17, 2007, 12:20:14 AM
Sorry, I did my ten years on the wall protecting this nation. I have a serious hate going on for for the recent crop of young republicans and chicken hawks. Neither of which thought enough of the nation to serve.
Did you serve?
You attacked the premise of my post. Defend yours now.
Post by: HankB on December 17, 2007, 05:46:13 AM
What the hell are 'unlawful combatants', anyway?
It refers to those who bear arms (including IEDs and such) while not wearing the uniform of any country. The term is being used today in order to justify holding them, rather than hanging or shooting them out of hand as spies, which was SOP in the past when enemies were caught out of uniform.
Post by: brer on December 17, 2007, 05:50:56 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 17, 2007, 06:51:31 AM
read the article closely and you'll see that despite the less than truthful title to the thread no such action against court orders happened. but it did sound good didn't it?
Post by: HankB on December 17, 2007, 07:14:20 AM
and also against the rules of the geneva convention and technically a war crime/crime against humanity.
Please cite the section of the Geneva Convention that extends POW protections to non-uniformed fighters.
Post by: brer on December 17, 2007, 07:18:11 AM
Both U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr and U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler had issued orders for the preservation of the tapes.
Your comment makes for a nice sound bite, but does not stand up to scrutiny.
Post by: brer on December 17, 2007, 08:12:54 AM
Read the conventions yourself. It is a good education. If you lack the fundamental ability to find it yourself, I will point it out in a day or three.
I would advise reading the conventions on the treatment of civilians. The Geneva conventions do not just cover military POW's. Even under the POW conventions they define protected classes which an "unlawful combatant" would fall under. They also define rules of prosecution.
Post by: HankB on December 17, 2007, 11:14:07 AM
HankB
Read the conventions yourself. It is a good education. If you lack the fundamental ability to find it yourself, I will point it out in a day or three.
When I opined that captured enemies not wearing uniforms used to be executed as spies, YOU asserted that such conduct was a war crime according to the Geneva Convention. Read the conventions yourself. It is a good education. If you lack the fundamental ability to find it yourself, I will point it out in a day or three.
I - very reasonably, I believe - asked you to provide a cite.
Instead of a cite, you provided the response quoted above.
I'll keep watch for ". . . a day or three . . ." to see if you can bear the burden of proof of your assertion; I'm always eager to learn and look forward to your cite of the specific section of the Geneva Convention that extends POW protection to the subject group. (Note that the subject group is not comprised of ordinary enemy civilians, but non-uniformed enemies bearing arms against us.)
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 17, 2007, 12:24:57 PM
Sorry Cassandrasdaddy, that dog don't hunt.
Both U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr and U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler had issued orders for the preservation of the tapes.
Your comment makes for a nice sound bite, but does not stand up to scrutiny.
Both U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr and U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler had issued orders for the preservation of the tapes.
Your comment makes for a nice sound bite, but does not stand up to scrutiny.
read slower and see whats actually there as opposed to what you want to see. i'll give you one more chance before i quote the important parts for ya.... but hey maybe your one of those followers of "IT COULDA HAPPENED THAT WAY" mores the pity heres a hint the orders were specific about what tapes were to be preserved vis a vis where they were made. and the reason no ones in jail for violating the orders is that they weren't violated it tell you how and why in the first article if you read carefully
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 17, 2007, 12:58:34 PM
"That June, U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. had ordered the Bush administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."
U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler issued a nearly identical order that July.
At the time, that seemed to cover all detainees in U.S. custody. But Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the terrorism suspects whose interrogations were videotaped and then destroyed, weren't at Guantanamo Bay. They were prisoners that existed off the books and apparently beyond the scope of the court's order."
Post by: roo_ster on December 17, 2007, 02:51:04 PM
What the hell are 'unlawful combatants', anyway?
Just another cute little catch phrase engineered to facilitate the willing sacrifice of freedom for perceived security. Kind of like "They Hate us For Our Freedoms" "Fundamental Islamic Extremists" and the all time Guiliani favorite - "Islamofacist".and also against the rules of the geneva convention and technically a war crime/crime against humanity.
Riley, the term "unlawful combatant" is an artifice of the Geneva Conventions and Hague Accords. To be deemed such requires more than just not being in uniform. They also have to violate the conventions themselves with regard to their treatment of for-real POWs , civilians, etc. Things like setting off car bombs in markets and deliberately targeting civilians will earn one that moniker.
IOW, it is not a term GWB pulled out of his 4th point of contact and applied to folks he dislikes. It is defined, has a solid meaning, and folks who earn the appellation must work hard to get it.
brer's and Finch's posts display ignorance of the topic at hand. 'nuff said.
RileyMc, if you are truly interested in learning about and reading them, they are posted several places on the net. Keep in mind that the USA and many other countries refused to sign on to subsequent addenda in the 1970s. Why? Becasue they included verbiage that equated mass-murderers with lawful combatants (IOW, POWs) as to treatment. Regular soldiers that fight according to the laws of war & the conventions deserve good treatment, wherever they come from Mass-murderers of noncombatants deserve a quick hanging after capture.
The usual suspects were pushing those addenda in the 1970s: leftists and others who supported the numerous "liberation" groups that killed noncombatants willy-nilly.
Post by: roo_ster on December 17, 2007, 02:52:04 PM
Reading truly IS fundamental.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 17, 2007, 03:01:21 PM
Post by: brer on December 18, 2007, 02:43:00 AM
Actually the term "unlawful combatant" is a term Bush and Co pulled out of their collective rears to try to avoid the duties required by the geneva conventions. I just grepped the geneva conventions and the Hague accord and unsurprisingly find the term missing in both.
Hank B and Jfruser
Try reading article five of the geneva convention.
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present< Convention at the earliest date consistent with security of State or Occupying Power "</P" as case may be.>
No such thing as as an "unlawful combatant under the convention, and anyone captured must be given the rights of a POW. No right to torture etc.
part 1 article 3 section d (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Summary executions are illegal.
Sorry HankB, but if you are going to make comments based on ignorance without even making a token effort to learn, it is not really my problem to straighten you out. As I said before, take some time and read the conventions.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 18, 2007, 03:48:00 AM
must be some interpretation of this that is unique to brer
and apparently some confusion as to the meaning of this
"at the earliest date consistent with security of State or Occupying Power "</P" as case may be.>
pity that. i think jfuser hit the nail on the head reading is fundemental
Post by: HankB on December 18, 2007, 04:14:43 AM
Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
* that of carrying arms openly
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war
The Al-Qaeda terrorists do not fulfill all of these conditions, hence, they are not entitled to POW status.
Interestingly enough, when the USA ratified the convention in 1955, it was with this reservation:
"The United States reserve the right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the provisions of Article 68, paragraph 2, without regard to whether the offences referred to therein are punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the occupation begins"
Quote
Sorry HankB, but if you are going to make comments based on ignorance without even making a token effort to learn, it is not really my problem to straighten you out. As I said before, take some time and read the conventions.
Right back at ya.Post by: Ex-MA Hole on December 18, 2007, 04:18:43 AM
Chill.
Now.
Post by: geronimotwo on December 18, 2007, 04:27:10 AM
http://www.icrc.org/WEB/ENG/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/p0365?OpenDocument&style=Custo_Final.4&View=defaultBody2
other links there for more specifics.
Post by: brer on December 18, 2007, 12:51:29 PM
The insurgents do not have to be classified as POWs, I never said they were, but under the convention they are granted the protections that Pows enjoy.
As far as having entered into the last treaty convention with reservations, either we are parties to the convention or we are not. Considering we have not formally withdrawn from the convention, we are still part of it, and must comply with all parts of it.
CassandrasDaddy
Yes, you are right, reading is fundamental, where does it give the right to torture?
The only right that is removed from people in this class is the right to communication.
Post by: Len Budney on December 18, 2007, 12:57:29 PM
The only right that is removed from people in this class is the right to communication.
In addition, the convention states that it should not be interpreted in such a way as to mandate compromising "the Security of the State." Communication by spies is an obvious special case of this: letting a spy talk to a priest, for example, might enable him to smuggle intelligence back to his side.
Clearly, the current administration is interpreting "the security of the State" in the broadest way possible, and claiming in effect, "Not torturing our prisoners compromises the security of the State."
But face it. It doesn't matter if we're stretching the conventions to the breaking point. The simple fact is that there's something satisfying about torturing towel heads. The beauty of having it done out of sight in places like Guantanamo is that we can enjoy the vicarious thrill of holding the bastards' heads under water until they're begging for mercy, while simultaneously pretending that this doesn't make us evil sadistic bastards ourselves.
--Len.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 18, 2007, 03:00:24 PM
HankB
The insurgents do not have to be classified as POWs, I never said they were, but under the convention they are granted the protections that Pows enjoy.
As far as having entered into the last treaty convention with reservations, either we are parties to the convention or we are not. Considering we have not formally withdrawn from the convention, we are still part of it, and must comply with all parts of it.
CassandrasDaddy
Yes, you are right, reading is fundamental, where does it give the right to torture?
The only right that is removed from people in this class is the right to communication.
The insurgents do not have to be classified as POWs, I never said they were, but under the convention they are granted the protections that Pows enjoy.
As far as having entered into the last treaty convention with reservations, either we are parties to the convention or we are not. Considering we have not formally withdrawn from the convention, we are still part of it, and must comply with all parts of it.
CassandrasDaddy
Yes, you are right, reading is fundamental, where does it give the right to torture?
The only right that is removed from people in this class is the right to communication.
i'm sorry were we looking for a right to torture? i thought i was scoffing at your feeling that these folks were protected by the geneva accords. and was using articles 5's unusually clear definition to show this to be untrue
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 18, 2007, 03:06:29 PM
The only right that is removed from people in this class is the right to communication.
But face it. It doesn't matter if we're stretching the conventions to the breaking point. The simple fact is that there's something satisfying about torturing towel heads. The beauty of having it done out of sight in places like Guantanamo is that we can enjoy the vicarious thrill of holding the bastards' heads under water until they're begging for mercy, while simultaneously pretending that this doesn't make us evil sadistic bastards ourselves.
--Len.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 18, 2007, 04:19:29 PM
and len did anyone other than you seem gleeful about torture? i'm put in mind of my liberal pro gun control friends they are so afraid of their own proclivities they see everyone else as a threat
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 18, 2007, 08:00:13 PM
And I predict that when GWB and Cheney die, the location of their graves will remain secret, because future generations will dig up their sorry rotting carcasses and hang them.
Seriously?
Post by: De Selby on December 18, 2007, 08:30:44 PM
In section 4.1.2, it gives some insight into who may be accorded POW status:
Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
* that of carrying arms openly
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war
The Al-Qaeda terrorists do not fulfill all of these conditions, hence, they are not entitled to POW status.
Interestingly enough, when the USA ratified the convention in 1955, it was with this reservation:
"The United States reserve the right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the provisions of Article 68, paragraph 2, without regard to whether the offences referred to therein are punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the occupation begins"
Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
* that of carrying arms openly
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war
The Al-Qaeda terrorists do not fulfill all of these conditions, hence, they are not entitled to POW status.
Interestingly enough, when the USA ratified the convention in 1955, it was with this reservation:
"The United States reserve the right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the provisions of Article 68, paragraph 2, without regard to whether the offences referred to therein are punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the occupation begins"
Quote
Sorry HankB, but if you are going to make comments based on ignorance without even making a token effort to learn, it is not really my problem to straighten you out. As I said before, take some time and read the conventions.
Right back at ya.This is exactly right, except there's one major issue that people here keep missing:
Being a POW means that you are generally exempt from criminal prosecution, even if you're a member of an outlaw army. This is the reason why German regulars went free after World War II-because they were considered something more like "guys doing their jobs in the field" than "evil defenders of the Nazi regime."
So no, no one argues that Al Qaeda members should get POW status. I don't think anyone has even tried to argue that.
But not being a POW does not equal having no rights. If you're not entitled to POW protections, and you are suspected of fighting in a war, then you are a suspected criminal.
And criminals have rights-ie, they get to hear the accusations and respond, and there has to be some proof provided to an impartial trier of fact that the person is in fact a criminal.
What does not exist in the law, and never has existed, is a class of people who can be punished as criminals without applying any of the legal procedures used to try crimes whatsoever. And that is precisely what the Bush administration is doing in many of these cases-handing out criminal punishment without applying the procedures generally used to prove crimes.
Again, to summarize, since many seem to be missing this key feature of the debate:
POW=no criminal prosecution, and no criminal punishment. POW's are not guilty of any crime. Wearing a uniform and behaving in accord with the conventions of war earns the combatant the right to be exempt from criminal prosecution for his conduct.
"Unlawful Combatant"=criminal behavior. Not complying with the conventions of war, ie, behaving like Al Qaeda, makes you a criminal. And we all know what is required to impose punishments on criminals-there must be proof that the person is in fact a criminal, and that the person committed a specific crime.
There is not and never has been a rule that you may be shot simply because someone in the uniform of an army said you were a spy or a guerrilla. And there're good reasons why, if you think about it. Granting executives and their agents the right to punish summarily, without answering to any judicial authority, and without having to observe any procedures for proving allegations, amounts to giving the executive the right to punish whomever it wishes whenever it wishes.
Post by: Paddy on December 18, 2007, 09:32:13 PM
And I predict that when GWB and Cheney die, the location of their graves will remain secret, because future generations will dig up their sorry rotting carcasses and hang them.
Seriously?
Yes seriously. Once their crimes and destruction have been exposed and made public, this administration will be reviled until the end of time.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 19, 2007, 01:31:17 AM
really?! never? they still teach american history natan hale ring a bell?
or this from your friends?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/09/wafg409.xml
Taliban 'hanged boy, 12, for spying for UK'
By Tom Coghlan in Kabul
Last Updated: 2:40am GMT 12/12/2007
Taliban fighters hanged a 12-year-old boy from a mulberry tree, claiming he was passing information on Taliban roadside bomb attacks to police and British forces, Afghan police have said.
Afghans gather around a Taliban hanging
The gruesome murder, which occurred in Sangin, an area held by British forces since driving out the Taliban in April, sparked outrage among politicians, who accused the al-Qaeda-linked militant group of atrocities against villagers. It was the second execution of a child attributed to the Taliban in three months.
Post by: HankB on December 19, 2007, 03:47:56 AM
Once their crimes and destruction have been exposed and made public, this administration will be reviled until the end of time.
Well, Harry Truman hasn't been reviled yet, and he 1) gave away Eastern Europe to Joseph Stalin; 2) Made sure the Nationalist Chinese didn't have the means to fight Mao; and 3) Got the USA involved in Korea, while at the same time protecting Red China.And of course JFK hasn't been reviled yet, though he screwed up royally in the Bay of Pigs fiasco and really got the ball rolling for the USA in Vienam.
LBJ? Not reviled yet, though his phony Tonkin Gulf incident led directly the death of over 58,000 Americans, and his Great Society program's cumulative costs are eerily close to our national debt . . . and don't forget his GCA '68.
Jimmy Carter helped fund the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by forcing the USA to buy chromium from that great defender of human rights, the USSR, rather than the evil Rhodesia. (Though I wonder whether rather than being evil, he was simply inept.)
Clinton? Downsized the military, ignored Osama, passed the AWB, and a host of other things.
I'm no fan of Bush by any means - his profligate spending, support for illegal aliens, many aspects of his conduct of Iraq, etc. - all disgust and disappoint me. But so far, there are several Democrats ahead of him in the contest for "Most Reviled."
Post by: K Frame on December 19, 2007, 05:17:29 AM
You need to rethink that position.
Truman had no part in the Yalta conference, in which the "spheres of influence" by the major powers were decided.
"Clinton? Downsized the military, ignored Osama, passed the AWB, and a host of other things."
Clinton continued the military downsizing that was started under Bush I.
Post by: Scout26 on December 19, 2007, 05:46:04 AM
Hell, even the French found them guilty.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071219/wl_nm/france_guantanamo_dc_1
Quote
French court finds ex-Guantanamo inmates guilty
PARIS (Reuters) - Five former Guantanamo Bay inmates were found guilty on Wednesday of terrorism-related charges by a French court and sentenced to one year in prison.
A sixth man was acquitted, according to the ruling that was read out in court.
The verdict took into account the 18-30 months the defendants had spent in the Guantanamo U.S. military prison and none will have to serve further time in jail.
The men say they were tortured at Guantanamo and a French public prosecutor said earlier this month that they had already suffered enough and should not return to prison.
Prosecutors said the five men, who are all French nationals, received military training in al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan between 2000 and 2001. They were accused of "criminal association in relation to a terrorist enterprise."
They had said there was not enough evidence to convict the sixth defendant and had urged the court to drop the charges.
The trial over the suspected links to al Qaeda began last year but was thrown into doubt after it emerged that French agents secretly interviewed the six in 2002 during their detention in Guantanamo, which is on the island of Cuba.
The defense contested the legality of the meetings, which it said took place at a time when the men were held in leg irons and detained in cages in the heat of the sun. However, their request for the trial to be abandoned was rejected.
During the 2006 hearings, five of the men confirmed they had been in al Qaeda training camps but said they had not carried out any military action before their capture.
The men were arrested in Afghanistan and Pakistan after the United States invaded the country in 2001, and were transferred to Guantanamo. They were returned to France in 2004 and 2005 after negotiations between Paris and Washington.
PARIS (Reuters) - Five former Guantanamo Bay inmates were found guilty on Wednesday of terrorism-related charges by a French court and sentenced to one year in prison.
A sixth man was acquitted, according to the ruling that was read out in court.
The verdict took into account the 18-30 months the defendants had spent in the Guantanamo U.S. military prison and none will have to serve further time in jail.
The men say they were tortured at Guantanamo and a French public prosecutor said earlier this month that they had already suffered enough and should not return to prison.
Prosecutors said the five men, who are all French nationals, received military training in al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan between 2000 and 2001. They were accused of "criminal association in relation to a terrorist enterprise."
They had said there was not enough evidence to convict the sixth defendant and had urged the court to drop the charges.
The trial over the suspected links to al Qaeda began last year but was thrown into doubt after it emerged that French agents secretly interviewed the six in 2002 during their detention in Guantanamo, which is on the island of Cuba.
The defense contested the legality of the meetings, which it said took place at a time when the men were held in leg irons and detained in cages in the heat of the sun. However, their request for the trial to be abandoned was rejected.
During the 2006 hearings, five of the men confirmed they had been in al Qaeda training camps but said they had not carried out any military action before their capture.
The men were arrested in Afghanistan and Pakistan after the United States invaded the country in 2001, and were transferred to Guantanamo. They were returned to France in 2004 and 2005 after negotiations between Paris and Washington.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 19, 2007, 05:58:38 AM
Post by: roo_ster on December 19, 2007, 07:15:32 AM
Quote from: SS
So no, no one argues that Al Qaeda members should get POW status. I don't think anyone has even tried to argue that.
Who do you mean by, "anyone?" I have read plenty of copy that calls for such. Maybe no one on APS, but the argument is common outside the hallowed grounds of APS.Quote from: SS
"Unlawful Combatant"=criminal behavior. Not complying with the conventions of war, ie, behaving like Al Qaeda, makes you a criminal. And we all know what is required to impose punishments on criminals-there must be proof that the person is in fact a criminal, and that the person committed a specific crime.
Well, now you get to an interesting question, "What is punishment?"Capturing an UC and imprisoning him for a length of time to determine if he is, indeed a UC is not punishment. Interrogating him as a means to help in that determination is also not punishment.
After gathering such information, keeping them imprisoned for years or by executing them sounds a lot like punishment.
Quote from: SS
There is not and never has been a rule that you may be shot simply because someone in the uniform of an army said you were a spy or a guerrilla.
Might want to be careful with terms like, "never." All that is required is one instance to prove you wrong. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that there are many instances of such in the history of the USA, alone. Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 19, 2007, 06:03:04 PM
Despite his friends' misgivings, Hale departed from the Continental Army at Harlem Heights and traveled to Norwalk, Connecticut. Then, dressed as an unemployed Dutch schoolmaster with his college diploma in hand, he secured passage across the Sound to Long Island. An exact recounting of his activities after this does not exist. He managed to work his way into New York City, gathered some information on the British soldiers there and make preparations for an escape. However, under confusing circumstances, Hale was captured on September 21. His notes and drawings were discovered hidden in his clothes; tragically, he had failed to use invisible ink, a technology available at the time. Forthright to the end, Hale admitted he was a Patriot soldier, an admission that sealed his fate. He had been out of uniform and operated behind enemy lines; under the existing rules of war he was subject to execution without trial. It should be noted that the British officers were especially uneasy about spies at this juncture because of recent fires that had ravaged the city and were thought to have been set by rebel agents.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h550.html
they need to start teaching history again
Post by: De Selby on December 19, 2007, 06:31:42 PM
The part that your blurbs left out, and that a real history would include, was that the British military had standards for proving such a case. Evidence found on Hale's person was presented in support of the claim that he was a spy, and he confessed to the crime.
That's why they executed him-because the case was proven, not because you can just shoot spies if you say "spy spy!" in combat.
Post by: De Selby on December 19, 2007, 06:34:44 PM
Quote
Who do you mean by, "anyone?" I have read plenty of copy that calls for such. Maybe no one on APS, but the argument is common outside the hallowed grounds of APS.
Certainly no one has sued alleging that members of Al Qaeda are eligible for this. I haven't seen anyone allege that Al Qaeda member should be POW's in popular press either. I'd be happy to see any calls for it that you know of.
Quote
Well, now you get to an interesting question, "What is punishment?"
It is interesting-it's also the reason that international conventions are fairly specific as to how POW's must be a treated. A good rule of thumb is that if you're not a POW, and you're in prison for indeterminate periods, you are being punished.
Quote
Might want to be careful with terms like, "never." All that is required is one instance to prove you wrong. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that there are many instances of such in the history of the USA, alone.
This would be true in reference to a claim about all events in history; but I made a claim about law and custom. One instance would not do this.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 19, 2007, 06:43:50 PM
cassandrasdaddy,
The part that your blurbs left out, and that a real history would include, was that the British military had standards for proving such a case. Evidence found on Hale's person was presented in support of the claim that he was a spy, and he confessed to the crime.
That's why they executed him-because the case was proven, not because you can just shoot spies if you say "spy spy!" in combat.
Right-o! The Brits had standards, which the modern Unites States does not. That makes all the difference. We're evil rat bastiches, ya see. We randomly throw people into the clink down in Cuba without any review, evidence, or standards. Cause we're mean like that. Err, well, we aren't mean, cause we support Ron Paul and revile Kigh George Bushco. We Paulistas are good people fighting the good fight to make sure everyone feels deep down in their gut that our government is mean and unjust.The part that your blurbs left out, and that a real history would include, was that the British military had standards for proving such a case. Evidence found on Hale's person was presented in support of the claim that he was a spy, and he confessed to the crime.
That's why they executed him-because the case was proven, not because you can just shoot spies if you say "spy spy!" in combat.
And Riley is dead on right. They WILL have to hide the bodies of Bush and Cheney, 'cause people like us already have plans to dig 'em up and defile them, just to make sure the world knows how we feel about those two savages.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 19, 2007, 06:48:26 PM
and this is a case that happened outside the phoenix program
Post by: De Selby on December 19, 2007, 08:45:45 PM
Quote
Right-o! The Brits had standards, which the modern Unites States does not. That makes all the difference. We're evil rat bastiches, ya see.
Sorry, but that is a gross distortion of what I said, which is precisely the opposite-that we do have laws here, and that if you look at our system, it's designed to protect people from summary execution without any requirement that the facts justifying said execution be proved.
The law works quite well, and our legal system and constitutional protections are as good as any in the world and better than every other in most respects.
The problem is that the system is being ignored and the law broken. Not that the United States is bad.
Post by: De Selby on December 19, 2007, 08:48:48 PM
http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Narrative/Stein_Lovely_War.html
and this is a case that happened outside the phoenix program
and this is a case that happened outside the phoenix program
This little story, (I have no idea what sources this comes from or whether it's true), is a good example of how American law deals with summary execution.
It's a crime. The US military, being the disciplined and law abiding organization that it is, actually investigates and punishes these crimes. That would tend to support my point here, which is that it has never been customary or legal (or viewed as such by authority figures-until now) to summarily execute suspected war criminals and spies without any sort of trial.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 20, 2007, 02:09:52 AM
http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Narrative/Stein_Lovely_War.html
and this is a case that happened outside the phoenix program
and this is a case that happened outside the phoenix program
This little story, (I have no idea what sources this comes from or whether it's true), is a good example of how American law deals with summary execution.
It's a crime. The US military, being the disciplined and law abiding organization that it is, actually investigates and punishes these crimes. That would tend to support my point here, which is that it has never been customary or legal (or viewed as such by authority figures-until now) to summarily execute suspected war criminals and spies without any sort of trial.
its a good example? they dropped the case
and you uncomfortable talking about phoenix? or more so about the story from 210 days ago about your heroes in the taliban and the 12 year old?
Post by: De Selby on December 20, 2007, 05:03:36 PM
its a good example? they dropped the case
Yeah, criminal cases get dropped all the time. The article is pretty clear on the fact that execution without trial is a crime, though. So I'm not sure how it serves your point.
Quote
and you uncomfortable talking about phoenix? or more so about the story from 210 days ago about your heroes in the taliban and the 12 year old?
Huh? I'm the one saying that what the Taliban did is contrary to international law, international custom, and decidedly different from what America does.
You're the one saying it used to be the law here, remember? I don't know how citing an example of the Taliban killing some kid for suspected spying would tend to prove that the law of the US and international law approve of such things.
Post by: longeyes on December 20, 2007, 05:24:03 PM
I suggest an obsession with liberty instead.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 20, 2007, 05:35:36 PM
Waterboarding and sleep deprivation are not torture. This is torture:
Quote
Blood-splotches on walls, chains hanging from a ceiling and swords on the killing floor the artifacts left a disturbing tale of brutalities inside a suspected al-Qaida in Iraq torture chamber.
Quote
The rooms "had chains, a bed an iron bed that was still connected to a battery knives and swords that were still covered in blood,"
Quote
Nearby were nine mass graves containing the remains of 26 people,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071221/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_torture_chamber;_ylt=Am56x3DazQZbXlKxwbGCIxis0NUE
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 20, 2007, 05:49:04 PM
And I predict that when GWB and Cheney die, the location of their graves will remain secret, because future generations will dig up their sorry rotting carcasses and hang them.
Seriously?
Yes seriously. Once their crimes and destruction have been exposed and made public, this administration will be reviled until the end of time.
Oh, so not seriously.
Post by: De Selby on December 20, 2007, 06:53:19 PM
I think we in this country have had it so good for so long that we've forgotten what the real world is like.
Waterboarding and sleep deprivation are not torture. This is torture:
Waterboarding and sleep deprivation are not torture. This is torture:
Those are also torture, but waterboarding clearly meets the statutory definition of torture. Torture isn't up for debate in terms of it being a crime-that's defined in statute, just like every crime.
For your reference, 18 USC 2340:
Quote
(1) torture means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
See subsection two for defining further:
Quote
(2) severe mental pain or suffering means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
There is absolutely no sane way to argue that waterboarding does not fit that definition. That's probably why they classified most of the memos authorizing the practice-because if anyone read them, they'd realize that they weren't even close to a good faith attempt to interpret the law.
If a bunch of Leftists here at home caught an American soldier and waterboarded him every day for a year to make him talk about war crimes in Iraq, I'd be outraged if they weren't charged with torture. So would most people, I imagine. The idea that there should even be a debate about what is basically the chinese water torture is a legal fiction from the past decade; before this, I think you would've been laughed out of any court in America if you actually tried to defend against a torture charge on that basis.
And indeed, the lengths to which this administration is going to prevent any judicial review of the process indicates that it too sees the legal writing on the wall.
Post by: roo_ster on December 21, 2007, 02:31:49 AM
I am concerned with real torture and not "torture." The firmer I oppose, the latter is a contemptible mutilation of the language.
Even given the above legal definitions, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, etc. is not "severe physical or mental pain or suffering." The techniques are not severe while in the midst and there are no lasting effects, save (perhaps) the lingering guilt of having given up fellow mass-murdering jihadis.