Our very own Gulag...

[Bob Hubbard]

Party dependant? No. But I would hope we would have learned from past mistakes. The "Internment" camps from the 40's are a good example. I've seen people strongly suggest rounding up all "moslem looking people" and put them in camps like we did the Japanese in the 40's. In all honesty, other than really screwing up some peoples lives, did it do any real good? Would it now? I think all it would do is encourage the acts we wish to prevent. America is not supposed to be a nation that imprisons others. Criminals yes, but not disidents (sp), and certainly not groups just because.

Anyway, Bush is more Alphred E Newman. I have the pictures.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The problem in part here, is using procedures that violate the concepts this nation once stood for. Part of the argument is that there are in fact rules and guidelines and laws even, that are being violated and broken, and encouraged to be broken, all supposedly in the defence of America.

Just exactly what are those principles and when did we stand for them? I remember some nazi saboteurs who were secretly tried and hanged. I can imagine that we used some pretty similar methods in all of our wars to retrieve information from particular enemy spies and saboteurs. Some i'm hard pressed to find this idyllic America (nor any other country for that matter). We've done what we've had to do.

I'm sorry, but you cannot have a system of torture, prisoncamps, inhumane treatment, and sadists be the front line in the defense of a nation who once was the shining beacon of human rights, freedom and fair play.

Again, i'm not sure what ideal you are referring to that we once possessed. The only difference now is the amount of light that is being cast on the whole endevor. If anything, we are far more humane now than in the past.

Hooking up someone's groin to a set of jumper cables is just not right, I don't care who they are. It's not the American way....at least, not the way of the America my family fought for through 2 world wars, Korea and Vietnam.

Actually, it is the way of the America that fought in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. The insinuation that this is new, or is unique to this president, is non-sense. As I recall, it was that great american presidence Franklin Roosevelt who signed the order to place thousands of innocent japanese americans in concentration camps. By that standard, I find the incarceration of several hundred terrorists reasonable and prudent.

As far as hooking up someone's groin to a set of jumper cables, if a foreign terrorist has knowledge that will save the lives of americans, I can only say this....Red is positive/Black is negative.

But, this is a different America. One where people bang chest and scream that to disagree is "UnAmerican", that shields it's leaders from the views of the people, that has moved beyond that silly idea that "We The People" are actually in charge allowing for our elected Emperor and his cabel of Princes to tell us what we can and cannot do.

Could you be any more vitriolic or hystrionic? Again, compared to the excesses of America's past, placing known terrorists in to camps where they can't blow people up is the height of reasonable. This is America is different alright....it's far more humane than at any time in the past. It's also held to a standard far higher than is reasonable in dealing with inhuman monsters willing to kill large numbers of innocent people for religious and political reasons.

This America, likes the idea of putting people away just because. It thinks it's ok to lock people up, without charge, without trial, without representation. Just incase.
We actually have to argue wiether or not it's acceptable to violate an individuals beliefs, to not only violate, but ridicule then, humiliate then, and torture them, with some of us claiming it's all ok, just so we don't get attacked again.

Putting people away just because.....they're terrorists who were actively engaged in an ongoing criminal enterprise to attack and kill Americans. Oh, the humanity. Where is our tolerance. Poor, poor terrorists. Being held in club Gitmo, the conditions of which are far better than most of them were discovered in.

America once stood as an alternate to the Repression of the Soviet System, a beacon of hope for those in nations that lived under the iron hand of fear. Now, it sometimes seems like there are those who would gladly allow it to become that which for so very long we rallied against.

Imagine, a country where it's not safe to be a terrorist, and plot the deaths of innocent people. What kind of monsters are we? What happened to freedom. It's the right of every red blooded terrorist to engage in terrorist activity without interference. That's the principles this country was founded on, right? lol.

We live in a nation where we gladly give up that which our fathers fought and died for, where laws and powers are passed giving more and more away, and we do it gladly.

Funny thing is, most of those "fathers" who fought and died, would have gladly shot these goons themselves. It's not our fore-fathers that fought who are offended, it's the fifth-column who have sought for years to undermine what they fought for that are offended.

Some will say I'm a fool...or worse. That I am encouraging softness, supporting "terrorists". Neither is true. We cannot save and protect America by defying that which it stands for. Allowing this treatment, encouraging it, regardless of the "filth" level of the recipient is not right. It's not American.

America stands for tolerance towards terrorists? Aren't we the same America who dropped two atomic bombs on Japan in response to an act of war?

You cannot save America, by ignoring what it stands for, and violating it's own laws in the process.

Nor can you save it through histrionics and false statements about what America stands for. America has never been a nation of tolerance toward terrorists and criminals, and we shouldn't start now. The America you've described sounds more like the legalistic leftwing paradise of socialists dreams, than the real America I know and love. Lets keep it that way.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Just exactly what are those principles and when did we stand for them? I remember some nazi saboteurs who were secretly tried and hanged. I can imagine that we used some pretty similar methods in all of our wars to retrieve information from particular enemy spies and saboteurs. Some i'm hard pressed to find this idyllic America (nor any other country for that matter). We've done what we've had to do.

Ever read the writings of the founders of this nation?

Again, i'm not sure what ideal you are referring to that we once possessed. The only difference now is the amount of light that is being cast on the whole endevor. If anything, we are far more humane now than in the past.

Yes, today we clean the rubber hose before and after beatings, and place the chains in an autoclave to minimize infection.

Actually, it is the way of the America that fought in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. The insinuation that this is new, or is unique to this president, is non-sense. As I recall, it was that great american presidence Franklin Roosevelt who signed the order to place thousands of innocent japanese americans in concentration camps. By that standard, I find the incarceration of several hundred terrorists reasonable and prudent.

And, these are all terrorists? No innocents have been locked up? Seems I read otherwise.

As far as hooking up someone's groin to a set of jumper cables, if a foreign terrorist has knowledge that will save the lives of americans, I can only say this....Red is positive/Black is negative.

And, what if the person is in fact innocent, knows nothing?
What if it was you who was falsely accused, kidnapped, hauled off and your johnthomas turned into a glow stick?

Could you be any more vitriolic or hystrionic? Again, compared to the excesses of America's past, placing known terrorists in to camps where they can't blow people up is the height of reasonable. This is America is different alright....it's far more humane than at any time in the past. It's also held to a standard far higher than is reasonable in dealing with inhuman monsters willing to kill large numbers of innocent people for religious and political reasons.

I can see you like the idea of a police state.

Putting people away just because.....they're terrorists who were actively engaged in an ongoing criminal enterprise to attack and kill Americans. Oh, the humanity. Where is our tolerance. Poor, poor terrorists. Being held in club Gitmo, the conditions of which are far better than most of them were discovered in.

Yup, all know terrorists. Not a single innocent in the mix.

Imagine, a country where it's not safe to be a terrorist, and plot the deaths of innocent people. What kind of monsters are we? What happened to freedom. It's the right of every red blooded terrorist to engage in terrorist activity without interference. That's the principles this country was founded on, right? lol.

Imagine a country where everyone must present their papers, where failure to do so results in immediate arrest and imprisonment. Imagine a nation where speaking out about such things will result in constant harassment, or deportation. Imagine a country where the police have the right to execute on the spot. All because someone is a "known terrorist" (or looks like one anyway)

Funny thing is, most of those "fathers" who fought and died, would have gladly shot these goons themselves. It's not our fore-fathers that fought who are offended, it's the fifth-column who have sought for years to undermine what they fought for that are offended.

5th column? Arguing for the concepts that were once the foundation of our laws now qualifies one to be labeled "5th column". Cool.

America stands for tolerance towards terrorists? Aren't we the same America who dropped two atomic bombs on Japan in response to an act of war?

2 bombs that didn't need to be dropped BTW, but thats another debate. I also wasn't aware that that action was in responce to terrorism.

Nor can you save it through histrionics and false statements about what America stands for. America has never been a nation of tolerance toward terrorists and criminals, and we shouldn't start now. The America you've described sounds more like the legalistic leftwing paradise of socialists dreams, than the real America I know and love. Lets keep it that way.

I never said it should tolerate it. I said it shouldn't violate it's own founding principles and laws to fight it. If hooking up jumper cables to force a confession is illegal here, we shouldn't "farm it out" to some other nation where it is. It's not the fight I object to, it's how the fight is being waged that I do.

I disagree with torture, both on principle, and on the fact that it has been proven to be an inefficient means of extracting information.

If your vision of Amerika becomes reality, then it is my deepest hope that the words and desires of Thomas Jefferson become a reality, that the despotic government will be once again pulled down, and a democratic nation put in it's place.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
--Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Oh, and what principles?

This is one:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
(4th amendment, U.S. Constitution)

Seems that the definition of "reasonable" has been changed as of late, and gods help you if you happen to look like "them". But, then again, several of our elected officials have repeatedly and publically lamented the Constitution getting in their way.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Ever read the writings of the founders of this nation?

You are aware our founders hanged spies and saboteurs (terrorists) in very short order. We provide them with 3 hot meals a day, a Koran, and dry, comfortable bed. My, how things HAVE changed. Don't invoke the names of the founders without knowing how they carried out day to day operations.

Yes, today we clean the rubber hose before and after beatings, and place the chains in an autoclave to minimize infection.

At least we're keeping it sanitary.

And, these are all terrorists? No innocents have been locked up? Seems I read otherwise.

No innocent Americans. I wouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. A proclaimation from a persons attorney, family or interest group that they are "innocent" really doesn't hold much weight. Lots of people proclaim innocence in the face of obvious guilt. It's the oldest ruse in the book.

And, what if the person is in fact innocent, knows nothing?
What if it was you who was falsely accused, kidnapped, hauled off and your johnthomas turned into a glow stick?

If they're innocent, they likely would not have been rounded up hiding out in a house packed with plastic explosives, maps of targets, weapons, and detailed plans for carrying out terrorists attacks. "What if?" is the oldest attorney trick in the book. It's designed simply to create reasonable doubt where none really exists. I'll give reasonable doubt to US citizens, I will not give reasonable doubt to foreign terrorists.

I can see you like the idea of a police state.

I can see you like to make tough arguments personal. I don't endorse a police state. I support the rights of American citizens, and I will not support holding US citizens without due process, as guaranteed to them by the Constitution. I do NOT believe Constitutional Rights apply to non-US citizens held on foreign soil. Sorry, that's a point of contention we simply disagree on.

Yup, all know terrorists. Not a single innocent in the mix.

Apparently that is the case, they are all terrorists. The vague "possibility" that someone is innocent is not enough to sway my opinion on this matter. Sorry.

Imagine a country where everyone must present their papers, where failure to do so results in immediate arrest and imprisonment. Imagine a nation where speaking out about such things will result in constant harassment, or deportation. Imagine a country where the police have the right to execute on the spot. All because someone is a "known terrorist" (or looks like one anyway)

A false argument. You are trying to use fear to win this argument, by linking things that have nothing to do with one another. Keeping foreign terrorists incarcerated has absolutely NOTHING to do with domestic freedoms. So your hyperbolic and histrionic analogy has no basis in reality.

We can BOTH defend domestic freedom AND aggressively pursue foreign terrorists. That's why we have Posse Comitatus in place, to seperate the mission of protecting the US from foreign enemies, with the job of civilian policing. It's the job of the police to enforce laws while respecting the constitutional rights of individual Americans. The job of the military is to protect us from foreign powers. This distinction needs to be kept in mind, and not allowed to be blurred. I give the military far more latitude to pursue it's goal of protecting the US from foreign powers, than I give law enforcement to fight crime.

By aggressively persuing and destroying terrorists, we actually reduce the possibility of losing our freedoms. If we prevent terrorist attacks before they happen, we don't have to punish law abiding citizens by creating a society where everyone is suspect. Ironically, the torture of a few terrorists prevents the loss of freedoms of the rest of us. I call that a small price to pay.

5th column? Arguing for the concepts that were once the foundation of our laws now qualifies one to be labeled "5th column". Cool.

The founding fathers were more in line with my thinking. As I pointed out earlier, they hung spies and sabotures. Your ideology is less rooted in their thinking, and more rooted in a bit of modern day political philosophy.

2 bombs that didn't need to be dropped BTW, but thats another debate. I also wasn't aware that that action was in responce to terrorism.

Then you weren't aware of Japanese aggression. Not just Pearl Harbor (which could have been argued as a valid military operation) but the Rape of Nanking, Japanese behavior in Manchuria, Japanese use of biological warfare against the Chinese, Japanese medical experiments conducted on thousands of enemy prisoners of war, etc.

In addition, when arguing that TWO bombs weren't necessary, you might want to keep in mind that the Japanese made no effort to surrender even after the FIRST bomb went off. It's more illustrative of the Japanese resolve.

I never said it should tolerate it. I said it shouldn't violate it's own founding principles and laws to fight it. If hooking up jumper cables to force a confession is illegal here, we shouldn't "farm it out" to some other nation where it is. It's not the fight I object to, it's how the fight is being waged that I do.

Why not? If it's being done to foreign terrorists, it really doesn't make me lose any sleep. Fighting terrorism isn't a job for choir boys. If you want to fight monsters, you might want to hire a few. The idea that you can be polyannic while pursuing people who murder innocent people on a regular basis is not founded in reality.

I disagree with torture, both on principle, and on the fact that it has been proven to be an inefficient means of extracting information.

It's actually not true that it is ineffiecient as a means of extracting information. That statement is founded as a means of trying to end torture. If torture was not useful in getting information, it would not have enjoyed such widespread use since the dawn of man.

As a general rule I believe torture is wrong, but i'm willing to make exceptions when it comes to stopping people who blow up buildings and purposely murder innocent people. I'm not persuaded by the slippery slope argument, as i'm very clear about where the line IS and where it should stay.

If your vision of Amerika becomes reality, then it is my deepest hope that the words and desires of Thomas Jefferson become a reality, that the despotic government will be once again pulled down, and a democratic nation put in it's place.

Again, with the histrionics. Running around declaring the sky is falling is not an argument.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
--Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Necessity is above all law." --Thomas Jefferson

"The law of self-preservation overrules the laws of obligation in others." --Thomas Jefferson

"In an encampment expecting daily attack from a powerful enemy, self-preservation is paramount to all law." --Thomas Jefferson

"[The] law of necessity and self-preservation... [render] the salus populi supreme over the written law. The officer who is called to act on this superior ground, does indeed risk himself on the justice of the controlling powers of the Constitution, and his station makes it his duty to incur that risk. But those controlling powers, and his fellow citizens generally, are bound to judge according to the circumstances under which he acted. They are not to transfer the information of this place or moment to the time and place of his action; but to put themselves into his situation." --Thomas Jefferson

"He is a bad citizen who can entertain a doubt whether the law will justify him in saving his country, or who will scruple to risk himself in support of the spirit of a law where unavoidable accidents have prevented a literal compliance with it." --Thomas Jefferson

"We judge of the merit of our agents... by the magnitude of the danger as it appeared to them, not as it was known to us. On great occasions, every good officer must be ready to risk himself in going beyond the strict line of law, when the public preservation requires it; his motives will be a justification as far as there is any discretion in his ultra-legal proceedings, and no indulgence of private feelings." --Thomas Jefferson

"Should we have ever gained our Revolution if we had bound our hands by manacles of the law, not only in the beginning, but in any part of the revolutionary conflict? There are extreme cases where the laws become inadequate even to their own preservation, and where the universal resource is a dictator or martial law." --Thomas Jefferson

Seems Jefferson and me are on the same page.

 

[Tgace]

The "torture gives you false results" argument is based in ignorance of intelligence work. Many times you dont interrogate someone hoping that something you dont know just pops out. You start with a baseline of knowledge gained through other intel sources and are then able to determine if what this person is telling you fits with what you already know. Dates, times, persons he met and where, verified from other sources. I think people have seen to many movies where the guy being zapped and asked "WHAT DO YOU KNOW!" just blurts out everything and the interrogators believe him.

That all being said Im still against torture. There are plenty of other psychological techniques that allow us to keep our humanity.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The "torture gives you false results" argument is based in ignorance of intelligence work. Many times you dont interrogate someone hoping that something you dont know just pops out. You start with a baseline of knowledge gained through other intel sources and are then able to determine if what this person is telling you fits with what you already know. Dates, times, persons he met and where, verified from other sources. I think people have seen to many movies where the guy being zapped and asked "WHAT DO YOU KNOW!" just blurts out everything and the interrogators believe him.

That all being said Im still against torture. There are plenty of other psychological techniques that allow us to keep our humanity.

All interrogation is about cost/benefit for the person being interrogated. Physical pressure actually speeds up the process, and increases the amount of useful information. That "Torture isn't reliable" is a truism that isn't true. It might be accurate to claim it isn't moral, it isn't palatable, or it isn't ethical, but say what you want, it is effective. Saying that torture isn't effective begs the question "Less effective than what"? WHat method is more effective than torture in extracting information from unwilling terrorists? Asking politely?

No, we avoid physical torture in general as we humans find it distasteful, not because it is ineffective.

The question becomes at what point does physical cohersion becomes torture? Is all cohersion torture? Even psychological cohersion? If all cohersion is torture, and all torture is wrong, how do we get information? We just ask politely? That's the problem with polyannic opinions, they are made by people who have no personal role in trying to stop terrorists. It's all arm chair quaterbacking at it's finest.

 

[Tgace]

Oh yeah. Theres plenty of "tricks" short of jumper cables, Ax handles and rubber hoses that are quite effective. However I do believe that the Libs just want us to hand them a plate of cookies and ask questions in a "non-threatening manner".

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Well, as long as we're only torturing non-Americans it's all ok then.

I'm certain that every effort is taken to be certain that no Americans are treated suchly.

Maybe the same care the we take at the border that confused American Indians with Middle Easterners? The same care that still allows weapons to find their way onto our airplanes?

I'm sorry, I forgot. Once we arrest someone and ship them to one of our concentration camps, they are deemed "enemy combatants", stripped of their citizenship and are therefore by default no longer Americans or deserving of protection under the laws of this nation.

There have been over 500 individuals who have gone through the system. You are 100% certain that there have been no abuses, nothing done inproperly, no mistakes? Especially when you and I have no permission to see those records? You trust those in charge too much I think.

Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Kent State showed that this nations governement will not hesitate to turn it's guns on it's own citizens. The reports of abuse in our concentration camps may be valid as well. Denying the Red Cross access (which has been done) is in fact a violation of international law. If we are breaking one law, we are probably breaking more. What about the Canadian citizen, arrested, deported to Syria, tortured and imprisoned for a year on US orders? (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/) Oh, I forget, he's a Canadian, not an American, and therefore not worthy of the same high level of respect we give our own.

I'm sorry, but regardless of what may be gained, I cannot support a system that uses such methods nor holds life in such contempt.

Stealing someone away in the middle of the night and hooking up his willie to a car battery will not stop another attack. Maybe if the government agencies charged and trusted with protecting our border had been doing just that, the SOBs wouldn't have gotten in. Maybe if those charged with screening passengers at the airports had done their job armed hijackers wouldn't have gotten -4- planes. Maybe we'd be less hated around the world if we'd stop supporting terrorist nations ourselves, and stop being a global bully. Maybe rather than giving social security to illegal immigrants we should fortify the borders they cross and stop them from entering in the first place?

But it is far easier to give up freedoms, to let those in power go through the motions, and continue to let our borders be a swiss cheese defence while playing global cop, fighting illegal wars, and distracting our people from our own domestic problems, rather than actually doing right for the country and fixing it at home. No, let us lock up our discenters in to "Free Speech Zones", racially profile people, and do open ended lockups of suspected evil. The nation is turning into a police state. In ways, it already is. And I don't care for it.

As to Jefferson, please show me where he supported torture, unlawful imprisonment, and involvement in foriegn nations affairs.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Oh yeah. Theres plenty of "tricks" short of jumper cables, Ax handles and rubber hoses that are quite effective. However I do believe that the Libs just want us to hand them a plate of cookies and ask questions in a "non-threatening manner".

One does not have to beat someone to get information from them. Nor do you have to starve them, parade them around like a dog or force them to watch you destroy something that millions see as holy. There are other, legal ways, that are allowed by law and treaty to encourage information release.

My problem is with the fanatics who scream the "America for Americans, love it or leave it" crap who fail to understand that such narrow views tend to overlook our own diverse ethnic origins. After all, none of us here speak Apache now do we?

 

[arnisador]

Are we fighting to protect our lives, or our way of life? If we want to be no better than them, we could just surrender right now and be perfectly safe and sound.

 

[Tgace]

Im still confused on how we have turned flushing a book into "torture". I recall an artist placing a Cross in urine and we expected the government to fund it. The same with leaving the lights on in a cell and giving dinner at a different time everyday to change the peception of time. Or placing them in rooms with no furniture or hooding them, making them stand etc. None of those do any harm to anybody. Heck some of them sound like basic training.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Would you say the say if the book was the Christian Bible? Or if it was watching the US Flag being used as a diaper, crapped on, shreaded and flushed? Because if those are wrong, then it is also wrong to treat their "sacred" items the same way.

I'll leave the art thing alone...I'm still in shock over "Green Lightning". Seriously, I don't consider Tom's example as "Art", but I do respect others rights to be, well, weird.

The rest, I don't consider torture as given.
Nothing wrong with hooding...unless the one being hooded is also naked, and being humiliated at the same time. There is a difference, a line, in my opinion, that seperates "US" from what thugs like Sadam would do, that shouldn't be crossed.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Are we fighting to protect our lives, or our way of life? If we want to be no better than them, we could just surrender right now and be perfectly safe and sound.

Both I think.
My "life" is outlined by the rights and privilages granted to me by our laws and Constitution. I fully expect that if I am detained by a duly appointed officer of the law that I will have that "right to remain silent", my "right to an attorney" and that said officer will not play "hide the nightstick" with my hind end, or "crush the piggies" with my fingers or other bits. This applies to me as a US citizen.

I am offended by the fact that our government has decided that it can scoop someone up, label then "enemy combatant", whisk them out of the country, strip me of my citizenship, and then beat, shock, brainwash and humiliate me, all without due process, all without being charged, all without a single shread of evidence or proof. Just a "maybe".

It's true, the US Constitution does not apply to citizens of other nations. But there -ARE- laws and rules that do apply to the treatment of foriegn citizens, POW's, etc. Violating those laws in the search to protect those same laws is not right. Period.
The enforcers of the law, and protectors of the freedom cannot be above or outside. They must work within otherwise they negate what it is they seek to protect. You can not have a free society without freedoms.

As to those imprisoned, they need to be treated within the laws. Otherwise, we are no better than them, in fact we are worse. We are hypocrites. (sp)

 

[Tgace]

If you want to compare us to Sadam heres a short list of some of his favorities.

Torture Methods in Iraq:
Medical experimentation
Beatings
Crucifixion
Hammering nails into the fingers and hands
Amputating the penis or breasts with an electric carving knife
Spraying insecticides into a victim's eyes
Branding with a hot iron
Committing rape while the victim's spouse is forced to watch
Pouring boiling water into a rectum
Nailing the tongue to a wooden board
Extracting teeth with pliers
Using bees and scorpions to sting naked children in front of their parents

Do you really think any American would be "tortured" by watching a Bible get flushed or a flag get burned? It may make them angry, but is making someone angry torture now?

Gwynne Roberts, a reporter for the London-based Independent, describes her experience in a torture center in northern Iraq:


In one cell pieces of human flesh — ear lobes — were nailed to the wall, and blood spattered the ceiling. A large metal fan hung from the ceiling, and my guide told me prisoners were attached to the fan and beaten with clubs as they twirled. There were hooks in the ceiling used to suspend victims. A torture victim told me that prisoners were also crucified, nails driven through their hands into the wall. A favorite technique was to hang men from the hooks and attach a heavy weight to their testicles.

— Independent, March 29, 1991

 

[Bob Hubbard]

And, if there wasn't laws and limits, would our "interegators" not use such methods? I believe some would say "Hey, they are terrorists, whatever it takes baby, whatever it takes.".

Do you really think any American would be "tortured" by watching a Bible get flushed or a flag get burned? It may make them angry, but is making someone angry torture now?

Well, to me, it's a book and a piece of cloth, so it wouldn't bother me. I do know others however who would be quite offended. Is it torture? That really depends on how and who. The definition of Torture varies.

Definitions of torture on the Web:

* anguish: extreme mental distress
* unbearable physical pain
* agony: intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical pain; "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the damned"
* torment: torment emotionally or mentally
* distortion: the act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean
* subject to torture; "The sinners will be tormented in Hell, according to the Bible"
* the act of torturing someone; "it required unnatural torturing to extract a confession"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Torture is the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation, deterent or punishment, or as a tool for the extraction of information or confessions. Sometimes torture is practiced even when it appears to have little or no functional purpose beyond the gratification of the torturer or because it has become the norm within the context.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

* the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental.
www.redcross.ca/print.asp

* The violence of torture is an acceptable interrogation tool used by many states even today, as suggested in an Indonesian military manual during the East Timor occupation:
www.embassy.org.nz/encycl/v1encyc.htm

* Area: Human Psychopathology Text Pages (est.): 6 Inge Genefke International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims
208.164.121.55/reference/STRS/strestoc.htm

* term meaning to cause pain.
www.fetishbondageclub.co.uk/glossary-definitions.htm

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Gents, I think I'm bowing out here. Something Sarge there said a bit back made me think...and I owe him an apology. I got a little personal I think, and shouldn't have. My apologies sir. We differ on several of our views, but I think we can agree we both do love this country, even if we see it differently. Thank you for reminding me of one of the reasons why we do live in a great nation, that right to disagree. Good posting sir. :asian:

 

[Tgace]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/05/EDG3ID2LTH1.DTL

 

[sgtmac_46]

Gents, I think I'm bowing out here. Something Sarge there said a bit back made me think...and I owe him an apology. I got a little personal I think, and shouldn't have. My apologies sir. We differ on several of our views, but I think we can agree we both do love this country, even if we see it differently. Thank you for reminding me of one of the reasons why we do live in a great nation, that right to disagree. Good posting sir. :asian:

No offense taken. It's obvious that we both love America. We can agree to disagree.

 

[michaeledward]

Well, here's a surprise. Imagine my shock at reading this report.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/01/politics/01gitmo.html?ex=1280548800&en=a6168b0bcac7dd09&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

August 1, 2005

Two Prosecutors Faulted Trials for Detainees

By NEIL A. LEWIS
WASHINGTON, July 31 - As the Pentagon was making its final preparations to begin war crimes trials against four detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, two senior prosecutors complained in confidential messages last year that the trial system had been secretly arranged to improve the chance of conviction and to deprive defendants of material that could prove their innocence.

The electronic messages, obtained by The New York Times, reveal a bitter dispute within the military legal community over the fairness of the system at a time when the Bush administration and the Pentagon were eager to have the military commissions, the first for the United States since the aftermath of World War II, be seen as just at home and abroad.

During the same time period, military defense lawyers were publicly criticizing the system, but senior officials dismissed their complaints and said they were contrived as part of the efforts to help their clients.

The defense lawyers' complaints and those of outside groups like the American Bar Association were, it is now clear, simultaneously being echoed in confidential messages by the two high-ranking prosecutors whose cases would, if anything, benefit from any slanting of the process.

In a separate e-mail message, the chief prosecutor flatly rejected the accusations by his subordinates. And a military review supported him.

Among the striking statements in the prosecutors' messages was an assertion by one that the chief prosecutor had told his subordinates that the members of the military commission that would try the first four defendants would be "handpicked" to ensure that all would be convicted.

The same officer, Capt. John Carr of the Air Force, also said in his message that he had been told that any exculpatory evidence - information that could help the detainees mount a defense in their cases - would probably exist only in the 10 percent of documents being withheld by the Central Intelligence Agency for security reasons.

Captain Carr's e-mail message also said that some evidence that at least one of the four defendants had been brutalized had been lost and that other evidence on the same issue had been withheld. The March 15, 2004, message was addressed to Col. Frederick L. Borch, the chief prosecutor who was the object of much of Captain Carr's criticism.

The second officer, Maj. Robert Preston, also of the Air Force, said in a March 11, 2004, message to another senior officer in the prosecutor's office that he could not in good conscience write a legal motion saying the proceedings would be "full and fair" when he knew they would not.

Brig. Gen. Thomas L. Hemingway of the Air Force, a senior adviser to the office running the war crimes trials who provided a response from the Defense Department, said that the e-mail messages had prompted a formal investigation by the Pentagon's inspector general that found no evidence to support the two officers' accusations of legal or ethical problems.

Colonel Borch, who has since retired from the military, sent his own e-mail message to Captain Carr and Major Preston on March 15, 2004, with copies to several other members of the prosecution team the same day, outlining his response.

In his message, Colonel Borch said he had great respect and admiration for Captain Carr and Major Preston. But their accusations, he said, were "monstrous lies." He did not, however, address any specifics, like stacking the panel.

"I am convinced to the depth of my soul that all of us on the prosecution team are truly dedicated to the mission of the office of military commissions," he wrote, "and that no one on the team has anything but the highest ethical principles."

Colonel Borch did not respond to telephone messages left at his home. Captain Carr, who has since been promoted to major, declined to comment when reached by telephone, as did Major Preston. Both Captain Carr and Major Preston left the prosecution team within weeks of their e-mail messages and remain on active duty.

General Hemingway said the assertions in the e-mail messages had been "taken very seriously and an investigation was conducted because of the allegations about potential violations of ethics and the law."

He said in an interview that the Defense Department's inspector general spent about two months investigating the accusations and reviewing the operations of the prosecutor's office. "It disclosed no evidence of any criminal misconduct, no evidence of any ethical violations, and no disciplinary action was taken against anybody," the general said. He also said that no evidence had been "tampered with, falsified or hidden."

General Hemingway declined to discuss any specifics of the two prosecutors' accusations, but he said he now believed that the problems underlying the complaints were "miscommunication, misunderstanding and personality conflicts." The inspector general's report has not been made public but was sent to the Pentagon's top civilian lawyer, he said.

Copies of the e-mail messages were provided to The Times by members of the armed forces who are critics of the military commission process. The documents' authenticity was independently confirmed by other military officials.

The Bush administration and the Pentagon have faced criticism about the legitimacy of the military commission procedures almost since the regulations describing them were announced in 2002.

The rules, which in essence constitute a new body of law distinct from military and civilian law, allow, for example, witnesses to testify anonymously for the prosecution. Also, any information may be admitted into evidence if the presiding officer judges it to be "probative to a reasonable person," a new standard far more favorable to the prosecution than anything in civilian law or military law. It is unclear whether information that may have been obtained under coercion or torture can be admissible.

The trials of the first four defendants began last August in a secure courtroom in a converted dental clinic at the naval base at Guantánamo. Before they could start in earnest, the trials were abruptly halted in November when a federal judge ruled they violated both military law and the United States' obligations to comply with the Geneva Conventions.

But a three-judge appeals court panel that included Judge John G. Roberts, President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, unanimously reversed that ruling on July 15.

Defense Department officials have said they plan to resume the trials in the next several weeks. They said they also planned soon to charge an additional eight detainees with war crimes.

The two trials expected to resume shortly are those of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who was a driver in Afghanistan for Osama bin Laden; and David Hicks, an Australian who was captured in Afghanistan, where, prosecutors say, he had gone to fight for the Taliban government.

In his March 2004 message, Captain Carr told Colonel Borch that "you have repeatedly said to the office that the military panel will be handpicked and will not acquit these detainees and we only needed to worry about building a record for the review panel" and academicians who would pore over the record in years to come.

Captain Carr said in the message that the problems could not be dismissed as personality differences, as some had tried to depict them, but "may constitute dereliction of duty, false official statements or other criminal conduct."

He added that "the evidence does not indicate that our military and civilian leaders have been accurately informed of the state of our preparation, the true culpability of the accused or the sustainability of our efforts." The office, he said, was poised to "prosecute fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged."

He said that Colonel Borch also said that he was close to Maj. Gen. John D. Altenburg Jr., the retired officer who is in overall charge of the war crimes commissions, and that this would favor the prosecution.

General Altenburg selected the commission members, including the presiding officer, Col. Peter S. Brownback III, a longtime close friend of his. Defense lawyers objected to the presence of Colonel Brownback and some other officers, saying they had serious conflicts of interest. General Altenburg removed some of the other officers but allowed Colonel Brownback to remain.

In his electronic message, Captain Carr said the prosecution team had falsely stated to superiors that it had no evidence of torture of Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al-Bahlul of Yemen. In addition, Captain Carr said the prosecution team had lost an F.B.I. document detailing an interview in which the detainee claimed he had been tortured and abused.

Major Preston, in his e-mail message of March 11, 2004, said that pressing ahead with the trials would be "a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people."



​