Iraqi Prisoners Abused, Humiliated, Tortured.

[raedyn]

Many of the people that are quick to disparage the US never said a word about the atrocities being committed before we were there. No Iraqi torturers were ever prosecuted and the so-called human rights groups never made near the noise as they do when the US makes mistakes.

Many people (in North America in particular) had no idea about what was going on before. And there WERE human rights groups trying to bring attentions to the problems under Hussein's regime. But mainstream media didn't pay much attention. Just because you haven't heard about it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

 

[heretic888]

Well, raedyn, its really not difficult to figure out.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. It was no secret that he tortured and murdered thousands of people during his reign. In essence, we all knew he was a "bad guy".

The United States, on the other hand, is a country that is supposed to pride itself on ideals like progress, freedom, liberty, and justice. In essence, we're supposed to be the "good guys".

This torturing policy the current administration has?? That's not very "good guy"-like. Plain simple.

 

[raedyn]

I have difficultly accepting any good guy / bad guy dicotomy.

I believe it is a noble and worthy goal for us to try and be a positive force in the world. But as soon as we start to label 'us' and 'them' as 'good' and 'bad' it sets us up for problems. It is never as simple or as black and white as that.

 

[rmcrobertson]

If you actually bother to look on, say, the Amnesty International website, you will find reports on absues all over the world, reported without fear or favor.

Left-wing and liberal groups have been screaming about the abuses in Iran, Iraq and the rest of the mid-east forever. You just weren't listening.

 

[raedyn]

exactly.

 

[heretic888]

I have difficultly accepting any good guy / bad guy dicotomy.

I believe it is a noble and worthy goal for us to try and be a positive force in the world. But as soon as we start to label 'us' and 'them' as 'good' and 'bad' it sets us up for problems. It is never as simple or as black and white as that.

My apologies. I didn't mean to reduce the comparison to a simple dualism.

But, the point remains is the reason we Americans are getting so much flack about the Abu Graihb incidents is because we claim to be morally better than the guys we're trying to stop. We claim to be fighting for justice, law, freedom, and all that jazz. Torturing people isn't doing that, sorry.

Its a morally slippery slope to simply justify torture because "the other side" is doing it, too. Remember, that the "other side" is comprised of terrorists and murderers. Following suit is hardly the high road.

Laterz.

 

[raedyn]

But, the point remains is the reason we Americans are getting so much flack about the Abu Graihb incidents is because we claim to be morally better than the guys we're trying to stop. We claim to be fighting for justice, law, freedom, and all that jazz. Torturing people isn't doing that, sorry.

Agreed.

Its a morally slippery slope to simply justify torture because "the other side" is doing it, too. Remember, that the "other side" is comprised of terrorists and murderers. Following suit is hardly the high road.

If we torture/murder/humiliate/etc, we are participating in the acts we (rightfully) condmen. And we are giving others more reason to despise us.

What about leading by example?

 

[heretic888]

What about leading by example?

My point exactly. :asian:

I actually saw something interesting a year or two back. It was a PBS interview with the former German ambassador to the United States. He was decrying the war, of course, but it was very interesting in how he was describing our nation.

Right or wrong, this guy had somehow gotten in his head that the United States had traditionally been some kind of shining beacon of hope for the world, and a powerful moral voice among the nations. Given America's rebuilding of Europe following WWII, I suppose its understandable how he could come to that point-of-view.

But, the point was that was how this guy saw our country. I've been told by others that this was how quite a few Europeans saw America for the better part of the 20th century, as well.

Gee, funny people, those Europeans.

 

[MisterMike]

U.S. OKs Evidence Gained Through Torture

Fri Dec 3,10:05 AM ET

By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Evidence gained by torture can be used by the U.S. military in deciding whether to imprison a foreigner indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an enemy combatant, the government says.


Statements produced under torture have been inadmissible in U.S. courts for about 70 years. But the U.S. military panels reviewing the detention of 550 foreigners as enemy combatants at the U.S. naval base in Cuba are allowed to use such evidence, Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle acknowledged at a U.S. District Court hearing Thursday.


Some of the prisoners have filed lawsuits challenging their detention without charges for up to three years so far. At the hearing, Boyle urged District Judge Richard J. Leon to throw their cases out.


Attorneys for the prisoners argued that some were held solely on evidence gained by torture, which they said violated fundamental fairness and U.S. due process standards. But Boyle argued in a similar hearing Wednesday that the detainees "have no constitutional rights enforceable in this court."


Leon asked whether a detention based solely on evidence gathered by torture would be illegal, because "torture is illegal. We all know that."


Boyle replied that if the military's combatant status review tribunals "determine that evidence of questionable provenance were reliable, nothing in the due process clause (of the Constitution) prohibits them from relying on it."


Leon asked whether there were any restrictions on using torture-induced evidence.


Boyle replied that the United States never would adopt a policy that would have barred it from acting on evidence that could have prevented the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks even if the data came from questionable practices like torture by a foreign power.


Several arguments underlie the U.S. court ban on products of torture.


"About 70 years ago, the Supreme Court stopped the use of evidence produced by third-degree tactics largely on the theory that it was totally unreliable," Harvard Law Professor Philip B. Heymann, a former deputy U.S. attorney general, said in an interview. Subsequent high court rulings were based on revulsion at "the unfairness and brutality of it and later on the idea that confessions ought to be free and uncompelled."


Leon asked whether U.S. courts could review detentions based on evidence from torture conducted by U.S. personnel.


Boyle said torture was against U.S. policy and any allegations of it would be "forwarded through command channels for military discipline." He added, "I don't think anything remotely like torture has occurred at Guantanamo" but noted that some U.S. soldiers there had been disciplined for misconduct, including a female interrogator who removed her blouse during questioning.


The International Committee of the Red Cross said Tuesday it has given the Bush administration a confidential report critical of U.S. treatment of Guantanamo detainees. The New York Times reported the Red Cross described the psychological and physical coercion used at Guantanamo as "tantamount to torture."


The combatant status review tribunals comprise three colonels and lieutenant colonels. They were set up after the Supreme Court ruled in June that the detainees could ask U.S. courts to see to it they had a proceeding in which to challenge their detention. The panels have reviewed 440 of the prisoners so far but have released only one.


The military also set up an annual administrative review which considers whether the detainee still presents a danger to the United States but doesn't review enemy combatant status. Administrative reviews have been completed for 161.


Boyle argued these procedures are sufficient to satisfy the high court.


Noting that detainees cannot have lawyers at the combatant status review proceedings and cannot see any secret evidence against them, detainee attorney Wes Powell argued "there is no meaningful opportunity in the (proceedings) to rebut the government's claims."

Leon suggested that if federal judges start reviewing the military's evidence for holding foreign detainees there could be "practical and collateral consequences ... at a time of war."

And he suggested an earlier Supreme Court ruling might limit judges to checking only on whether detention orders were lawfully issued and review panels were legally established.

Leon and Judge Joyce Hens Green, who held a similar hearing Wednesday, said they would try to rule soon on whether the 59 detainees may proceed with their lawsuits.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Speaking of leading by example....

There was a time when this country--whatever its sometime actions in the field--made clear, articulate public stands against this sort of evil. One regrets seeing one's country tossing out the moral vision that made Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and Telford Taylor and so many others possible, at the behest of a crowd of con artists, cheap hustlers, and rich white boys.

 

[Adept]

"Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; puring cold water on naded detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guiard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in he cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instacne actually biting a detainee

After what they do to their captives, you'll forgive me if I find it hard to get my panties in a twist over this.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

After what they do to their captives, you'll forgive me if I find it hard to get my panties in a twist over this.

The intellectual equivalent of a 9-year-old screaming "well he hit me first!"

But hey, if you're happy with a government using policies of basic barbarism, you have fun.

 

[Adept]

The intellectual equivalent of a 9-year-old screaming "well he hit me first!"

I would disagree and say that it is a simple comparison. What they do to their prisoners is much, much worse. Given that such horrible extremes exist, and are being used on a regular basis, I consider the 'abuse' that the prisoners in question were put through to be light punishment, by comparison. Everything is relative, after all. I would rather spend my energy worried about the treatment of western, and western allied prisoners held by Iraqis than the other way around.

But hey, if you're happy with a government using policies of basic barbarism, you have fun.

I'm not overly happy about it. It generates public disease and makes it harder for the government to protect the interests of the nation. It is wrong because its stupid, not because its 'bad'. The rules of war, indeed the rules of common decency, will always be tossed aside as soon as they become an impediment to victory.

This much should be obvious to you as a martial artist. It is hardly considered common decency to poke someone in the eye, or break their bones, or injure them in any way. However, when push comes to shove and its you or them, such social niceties mean absolutely nothing. You do what is necessary.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I would disagree and say that it is a simple comparison. What they do to their prisoners is much, much worse. Given that such horrible extremes exist, and are being used on a regular basis, I consider the 'abuse' that the prisoners in question were put through to be light punishment, by comparison. Everything is relative, after all.

Does the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right" mean anything to you? I don't care how bad other countries may treat their prisoners, that's no justification for our military to torture the prisoners we have just for the fun of it.

I would rather spend my energy worried about the treatment of western, and western allied prisoners held by Iraqis than the other way around.

Why's it only one or the other?

The rules of war, indeed the rules of common decency, will always be tossed aside as soon as they become an impediment to victory.

So all discussions of good and bad, right and wrong are automatically moot issues? Or at best, merely academic or speculative activities?

This much should be obvious to you as a martial artist.

Which I'm not.

It is hardly considered common decency to poke someone in the eye, or break their bones, or injure them in any way. However, when push comes to shove and its you or them, such social niceties mean absolutely nothing. You do what is necessary.

How has push come to shove, what's necessary here? The discovery of information? Oh please. Shove a light stick up someone's *** and i'm quite sure they'll tell you whatever you want to hear. If the situation is one of your life or theirs, I'd agree with you that decency and civility go out the window. But that's not the case here. What we have is a group of foreigners currently under our custody, and how they're being treated. I'd say civility is quite involved here.

 

[Adept]

Does the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right" mean anything to you?

The phrase is inane in the highest regard. Two wrongs do not make a right, and taken on face value this is correct. However, when two parties both consider their own actions to be right, and the other parties actions to be wrong, things get a little more complicated. Iraqi extremists consider beheading and torturing their prisoners to be right. We dont. Where does that leave us?

I don't care how bad other countries may treat their prisoners, that's no justification for our military to torture the prisoners we have just for the fun of it.

I agree, although likely for different reasons.

Why's it only one or the other?

Why waste time on the lesser problem? Consider it in context of a work related re-fresher course. You could use the time to learn new computer skills, or you could learn how to groom walrusses. Now, it doesnt matter how well you learn to groom said walruss, because there are more pressing problems at hand. Why not learn both skills? Why not use the time you are wasting on the one (lesser) problem to concern yourself with the other (much worse and pressing) concern.

So all discussions of good and bad, right and wrong are automatically moot issues? Or at best, merely academic or speculative activities?

Essentially, yes. There are certain people around the world who still consider it the 'right' thing to do to stone a woman to death for infidelity. There are cultures who consider it the 'wrong' thing to do to eat a pig. There are cultures who consider it acceptable to allow a baby to be partially born, and during the birthing to drive a spike inside its head, suction its brains out and collapse its skull.

Right and wrong are relative.

Which I'm not.

Forgive the assumption. I felt it safe considering the context of the forums.

How has push come to shove, what's necessary here? The discovery of information? Oh please. Shove a light stick up someone's *** and i'm quite sure they'll tell you whatever you want to hear. If the situation is one of your life or theirs, I'd agree with you that decency and civility go out the window. But that's not the case here. What we have is a group of foreigners currently under our custody, and how they're being treated. I'd say civility is quite involved here.

In this regard I was discussing (in abstract) the rules of war and social niceties. Not really relevant to the particular discussion at hand, but a logical continuation of it. The actions at Abu Ghraib were out of order, not because they hurt peoples feelings or bodies, but because they hurt the over-all war effort. Just like the rules of war become counter-productive once they impede the ability of a nation to protect its interests.

 

[Flatlander]

The actions at Abu Ghraib were out of order, not because they hurt peoples feelings or bodies, but because they hurt the over-all war effort. Just like the rules of war become counter-productive once they impede the ability of a nation to protect its interests.

No, the actions at abu Ghraib were out of order because they were in violation of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. May I direct you here for reference.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Reeeeeeal stupid question here, but the US did sign onto the Geneva Convention, right?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

The phrase is inane in the highest regard. Two wrongs do not make a right, and taken on face value this is correct. However, when two parties both consider their own actions to be right, and the other parties actions to be wrong, things get a little more complicated. Iraqi extremists consider beheading and torturing their prisoners to be right. We dont. Where does that leave us?

In a position of complete hypocrisy, if we are to turn around and torture our prisoners.

Why waste time on the lesser problem? Consider it in context of a work related re-fresher course. You could use the time to learn new computer skills, or you could learn how to groom walrusses. Now, it doesnt matter how well you learn to groom said walruss, because there are more pressing problems at hand. Why not learn both skills? Why not use the time you are wasting on the one (lesser) problem to concern yourself with the other (much worse and pressing) concern.

I'm sorry, but did you just make a comparison between being concerned over prisoners' rights and grooming a walrus? Who the hell grooms a walrus?

As a more substantial response, my point was that it's possible to be concerned and argue (since that's all we're doing right now) against BOTH country's torturing prisoners, instead of deciding one or the other. I think both are wrong, and am willing to argue so.

Besides, walrus' need friends, too. :lol:

Essentially, yes. There are certain people around the world who still consider it the 'right' thing to do to stone a woman to death for infidelity. There are cultures who consider it the 'wrong' thing to do to eat a pig. There are cultures who consider it acceptable to allow a baby to be partially born, and during the birthing to drive a spike inside its head, suction its brains out and collapse its skull.

Right and wrong are relative.

So because there are varying, and oftentimes opposing, standards of right and wrong, all are equally valid and should therefore not be looked towards for making decisions. Interesting take. So both the KKK's and Martin Luther King Jr.'s stances on racial relations are equally valid?

Forgive the assumption. I felt it safe considering the context of the forums.

It's a safe assumption on here, no apology necessary. Just clarifying that I am not, as of yet, a martial artist. Hope to be sometime.

 

[michaeledward]

Reeeeeeal stupid question here, but the US did sign onto the Geneva Convention, right?

It is not a stupid question at all.

Yes, the United States of America did Ratify the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. It was ratified by the United States Congress on February 8, 1955. This means the Geneva Convetions are United States Law.

Now, it is important to note that the United States did ratify the Conventions with 'Reservation / Declaration' which is defined as:

a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State when ratifying, acceding or succeeding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State (provided that such reservations are not incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty).
​

I have no additional information concerning the 'Reservation / Declaration' at this time.

Mike

 

[michaeledward]

There are cultures who consider it acceptable to allow a baby to be partially born, and during the birthing to drive a spike inside its head, suction its brains out and collapse its skull.

Once again, and inaccurate and incomplete description of a legitimate medical procedure from someone with, apparently, incomplete knowledge.

To process you are describing is correctly termed 'Intact Dilation and Extraction' and is sometimes called D&X. There are times when this medical proceedure is required and is the most appropriate medical proceedure available.

But it is so much easier to argue emotion over reason.