American King George II wants MORE private info ...

[Blotan Hunka]

I have only made a few posts on this thread to ask for clarification or to give some information. Now, I think I want my opinion to be out there with the rest though.

Torture is wrong. Regardless of how effective it is, it is simply morally wrong. However, I do think there is some Grey area as to what constitutes torture. I would consider water boarding torture. But not sleep deprivation. I've been subjected to both. Both are effective at breaking down a persons will. Water boarding however puts a person in fear for their lives, whereas depriving someone of sleep might make you more susceptible to interrogation, it is not life threatening.

Basically, I think what constitutes torture falls into "I'll know it when I see it" category.

Jeff

Same here.

 

[OUMoose]

Torture is wrong. Regardless of how effective it is, it is simply morally wrong. However, I do think there is some Grey area as to what constitutes torture. I would consider water boarding torture. But not sleep deprivation. I've been subjected to both. Both are effective at breaking down a persons will. Water boarding however puts a person in fear for their lives, whereas depriving someone of sleep might make you more susceptible to interrogation, it is not life threatening.

Basically, I think what constitutes torture falls into "I'll know it when I see it" category.

That is your opinion, and I respect that. However, I also disagree with part of it.

I agree that Torture is wrong, period. Not only is it wrong because the torturer is willingly causing suffering to another person, its ineffective. It is instinctual to try to get away from discomfort, so in the end the torturee will say whatever to get out of it (factual or not).

Also, You may "know it when you see it", but what about me? My idea of "acceptable" may be a little different than yours. My idea may be different than the next guy's. Using something as subjective as opinion to measure the effectiveness of interrogation would be risky at best.

For example, lets take your idea of sleep dep. How long is enough? A day? A week? A month? What level of psychological damage will be done with an extended period of sleep depervation? IIRC, during the MKULTRA project, Sleep Depervation was one of the techniques used to fracture a person's personality.

As another point, if somehow our gov't defines "acceptable" levels of torture, when will it be applied to us? When will "confessions under duress" become the norm and considered acceptable evidence to a domestic crime?

With as much as religion is toted around like a banner with this administration, one would think a message from the bible as simple as "do unto others..." would ring true here. :idunno:

 

[Don Roley]

I am not arguing effectiveness. Although, I agree it is ineffective.

I am arguing it is against the law, you know, the Geneva Conventions; The law our country approved fifty seven years ago.

You seem to have missed the post by Fu Bag. The conventions do not apply in the cases we are talking about.

Especially if we are talking about things like making people stand at attention and such to take the edge off of them before they tangle with an interogator. But if we got Osama and knew that he knew some details that could save thousands of Americans, legally and morally we could waterboard him.

Of course, we do not do that sort of things with all the thousands of people we keep in custody, even though some seem to be trying to paint that as the case. I and others oppose the type of thing that a few people have gotten charged by the US goverment for doing to prisioners under their care. I think most service members would be pretty mad at the way some sources try to present all American soldiers as being abusive instead of admitting that it is only a few bad ones that later get charged.

 

[michaeledward]

You seem to have missed the post by Fu Bag. The conventions do not apply in the cases we are talking about.

Especially if we are talking about things like making people stand at attention and such to take the edge off of them before they tangle with an interogator. But if we got Osama and knew that he knew some details that could save thousands of Americans, legally and morally we could waterboard him.

Of course, we do not do that sort of things with all the thousands of people we keep in custody, even though some seem to be trying to paint that as the case. I and others oppose the type of thing that a few people have gotten charged by the US goverment for doing to prisioners under their care. I think most service members would be pretty mad at the way some sources try to present all American soldiers as being abusive instead of admitting that it is only a few bad ones that later get charged.

Common article III of the Geneva Conventions apply to all prisoners / detainees - whatever you wish to call them. That is why it is referred to as 'Common'. That farmer hogget was turned into an Afghan warlord does excuse the United States military from its obligations under Geneva; the laws of our land.

Your discussion of 'Osama' places the cart before the horse. How do you know which person has the information that justifies your application of waterboarding before the fact. How do you know how many Americans are in jeapordy before the bad guy takes action. And ... how can you trust this administration when so much of their intelligence has been so bad .... are you still looking over your shoulder for those Iraqi UAV's carrying biological weapons?

As for a 'few bad ones' - Amnesty International disputes that claim. But further, who is responsible for the actions of the low ranking officials in the military? Why have no high ranking officials been prosecuted in the Abu Ghraib incidents?

None of these arguments face the test of reality.

 

[Don Roley]

Common article III of the Geneva Conventions apply to all prisoners / detainees - whatever you wish to call them. That is why it is referred to as 'Common'. That farmer hogget was turned into an Afghan warlord does excuse the United States military from its obligations under Geneva; the laws of our land.

Read article IV of the convention. To qualify for Geneva protection, you have to follow the rules and definitions. I remember my training in it. Soldiers are told straight out that if they try to escape a POW camp they have to keep their uniforms on. If they are found outside of their uniforms, the least that can happen to them is they will be shot as spies or partisans and the Geneva convention will not apply.

Your discussion of 'Osama' places the cart before the horse. How do you know which person has the information that justifies your application of waterboarding before the fact. How do you know how many Americans are in jeapordy before the bad guy takes action. And ... how can you trust this administration when so much of their intelligence has been so bad .... are you still looking over your shoulder for those Iraqi UAV's carrying biological weapons?

You are assuming that we do not know. There is a lot that goes on in gathering intelligence from a prisoner. I gave a hypothetical situation to encourage debate an you will not even acknowledge that the sitaution may happen.

As for a 'few bad ones' - Amnesty International disputes that claim. But further, who is responsible for the actions of the low ranking officials in the military? Why have no high ranking officials been prosecuted in the Abu Ghraib incidents?

None of these arguments face the test of reality.

The people that were found to be guilty in the Abu Ghraib case were punished. Their supreiors were investigated but not enough evidence was found to prosecute them. However they were punished for lack of oversite.

I personally do not think that the typical American soldier is a sadistic, murdering bastard no matter what AI charges. If they do cross the line, they should be punished and it looks like they are.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

It is instinctual to try to get away from discomfort, so in the end the torturee will say whatever to get out of it (factual or not).

If what he is saying matches up with what you have gathered from other sources its verifiable. If he starts naming suspects that 3 other guys have named (or you already have in custody), you know hes telling you the truth. You would never start an investigation or bet all your chips on info gathered from one of these subjects, you are going to get a mixture of truth, half-truth and "what you want to hear" its up to the "spooks" to figure out whats what. The "its ineffectual" arument is unproven to me, these are methods to get info out of people. ANY method is going to result in them telling you what you want to hear. What technique will result in getting the truth out of these guys? These techniques (as far as I have read) are about speed, vs. a long drawn out series of questioning, verifying, re-questioning. You people are thinking its "TELL ME WHERE THE BOMB IS OR IM TEARING OUT YOUR EYES!!" You all have seen too many steven segall movies. The "its ineffectual" argument from internet posters vs. what the CIA has investigated and wants...well lets just say I believe that the spooks are very good at figuring out if a person is lying to make the treatment stop. They can pull off 9/11 but they cant figure that out??

 

[tshadowchaser]

I am arguing it is against the law, you know, the Geneva Conventions; The law our country approved fifty seven years ago.

we may by law abide by the convention but our enemies do not. Why the hell can we not play by the rules that others use against us. I would rather have one person get tortured and save lives than have them not and have 100's or 1000's killed because we do not have that information.

Read article IV of the convention. To qualify for

Geneva protection, you have to follow the rules and definitions.

again our enemies do no follow these rules

 

[heretic888]

we may by law abide by the convention but our enemies do not. Why the hell can we not play by the rules that others use against us.

I would have thought the answer was so glaringly obvious, but I suppose it needs to be spelled out to some:

Because. We. Are. Not. Terrorists.

 

[michaeledward]

we may by law abide by the convention but our enemies do not. Why the hell can we not play by the rules that others use against us. I would rather have one person get tortured and save lives than have them not and have 100's or 1000's killed because we do not have that information.


again our enemies do no follow these rules

I'm with Heretic on this one ...

We obey rules and laws because our nation is based on rules and laws. To ignore those rules and laws for the sake of expediency, diminishes us all.

I do not expect the President (any president) to keep me safe from everything in the world. Think of all the warning labels on consumer goods. Weren't the Republicans arguing just a few years ago about 'frivolous lawsuits', the fact that common sense needs to be applied to everyday things.

Why now, has that idea been abandoned?
Why must we surrender, or have the President give away, our liberties, in order to maintain the illusion that our nation was once the beacon of liberty?

To use a martial arts analogy, you can't defend against a sucker punch. Sure, you try to be environmentally aware of your surroundings, but you can't be aware of everything. And maybe a bad guy will land one on you unsuspecting.

I trust the government is doing what it should ... but within the rules that make us who we are. But when we break those rules, we are no longer what we thought we were .... it is only our illusion of ourselves.



-- Gratuitus reminder -- 'When I say 'I trust the government is doing what is should' --- I mean the President actually pays attention to CIA Briefings that tell him Osama bin Laden is Determined to Strike in the US. --- I have no patience for incompetence at that level.

 

[Cryozombie]

Because. We. Are. Not. Terrorists.

No? Im beginning to wonder how true that statement is...

 

[Don Roley]

We obey rules and laws because our nation is based on rules and laws.

And according to article IV of the Geneva convention- we are not breaking those laws.

Of course, saying that something is the law, we can't debate or change it if it turns out to be doing more harm than good is another appeal to authority logical fallacy. Eminent Domain is a case where we are taking a look at a law that is not going as it was intended and trying to change it. To use the same logic, we should just shut up and let the goverment do what it wants.

The idea that Heretic and others have put out that we do not want to become as bad as those we fight is a valid one. But if we are talking about things like making people stand up for periods of time, or even waterboarding, then I hardly think that comes even a little close to folks that target small children and slowly saw the heads off of prisoners.

Tshadowtracer is right. The other side is not playing by the rules and we are not even willing to deprive someone caught with a load of bombs a little sleep. I saw John McCain on TV last night and he was saying he was worried what Iranians might do if they captured Americans in the near future if we debated the Geneva convention and how we treat prisoners. I know he is honest in his opinions, but does anyone think that the Iranians would care at all about the Geneva convention in that case anyways? They did not treat the Embassy hostages according to it, nor the Iraqi troops they captured in that war.

We do not want to become what we fight. But just because as martial artists we do not want to become murderers does not mean that we do not learn how to use deadly force to defend ourselves against a knife attack. We would never pull in the 9 year old kid of someone we captured and rape her in front of him to get him to talk. The other side would.

 

[OUMoose]

We do not want to become what we fight. But just because as martial artists we do not want to become murderers does not mean that we do not learn how to use deadly force to defend ourselves against a knife attack. We would never pull in the 9 year old kid of someone we captured and rape her in front of him to get him to talk. The other side would.

No, we don't want to become what we fight. I train to defend myself against a knife attack. I don't train to beat the living crap out of the knife store owner to learn who bought knives in my general vicinity to defend against the same attack.

... and never say never.

 

[Don Roley]

No, we don't want to become what we fight. I train to defend myself against a knife attack. I don't train to beat the living crap out of the knife store owner to learn who bought knives in my general vicinity to defend against the same attack.

That is not the point.

My point was that if someone tries to kill you and succeeds, they are a murderer. If you use lethal force to stop them, then even though you use the same means you are not a murderer.

If someone is reported as a terrorist, then it may be a case where someone is trying to settle scores. But if you caught someone like Bin Laden, then there is a lot more certainty. You deal with each appropriatly.

And I should point out that while the other side is quite willing to saw the heads off of Americans they catch, the items that we are discussing are nothing that members like JeffJ volunteered to have done to them. I do not think we should sink to the level of torture that Osama would use, even on Osama himself. But if we are dealing with things that people volunteer for, I just don't see the moral equivelency.

 

[michaeledward]

To even begin to attempt to choose quotes from this article does it a disservice.

But for those who continue to believe and to argue that the United States are the 'Good Guys', and it is only a few low level bad apples that perpetrating all these news stories; consider the case of Maher Arar.

Apparently, he was guilty of 'Flying while Muslem'.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14897315/


EDIT

And here is a link to the full report.

http://www.ararcommission.ca/eng/26.htm

END EDIT

 

[Don Roley]

To even begin to attempt to choose quotes from this article does it a disservice.

But for those who continue to believe and to argue that the United States are the 'Good Guys', and it is only a few low level bad apples that perpetrating all these news stories; consider the case of Maher Arar.

Apparently, he was guilty of 'Flying while Muslem'.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14897315/

Yep, read it. We should keep people like that under our care instead of sending them back to Syria. But even sending someone to their home country is better than letting someone we think may be a terrorist loose and running around in America. If we send them to Gitmo, we get grief. If we send them back to their country, we get grief. If they later do terrorist acts, that is really bad.

So if we agree to keep someone in Gitmo as long as we want instead of sending them back to their countries as a suspect, would that be ok or would that be wrong? Just let them go?

 

[SFC JeffJ]

As far as the people detained at GITMO go, a lot of them don't want to go back home. Many went on "Jihad" because they wanted to "atone" for their sins, which would get them the death penalty back in their home countries. Many of the detainees are Chinese Muslims who were training with AQ in Afghanistan but had no intention of doing anything against the US or other western countries.

Just thought I'd put this out there,

Jeff

 

[Don Roley]

As far as the people detained at GITMO go, a lot of them don't want to go back home. Many went on "Jihad" because they wanted to "atone" for their sins, which would get them the death penalty back in their home countries. Many of the detainees are Chinese Muslims who were training with AQ in Afghanistan but had no intention of doing anything against the US or other western countries.

Yeah. There are also some guys from other countries that are in the same boat. Send them back and they get killed.

But if a country like Canada tells us that they have reason to believe that someone is a terrorist with intentions towards the US, what should we really do? The problem is that even our closests allies will not give the exact sources of their information. That is the way the intelligence game is played. The sources would not hold up in a US court of law because of this secrecy so that even if we sent them to Gitmo they could be released into the US at a later date by a court order.

We need a serious discussion about this, but there are too many people that don't want answers and debate, just a way to bash the current administration.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

I should have been more clear in my last statement. I wasn't trying to imply that all the people who didn't wan't to leave GITMO were the Chinese Muslims.

Jeff

 

[michaeledward]

But if a country like Canada tells us that they have reason to believe that someone is a terrorist with intentions towards the US, what should we really do? The problem is that even our closests allies will not give the exact sources of their information.

Well, we can over-react. You know, kidnap a foreign national, hold him without charge for a year, send him overseas so that he can be tortured.

And what evidence did we have ---- zip, zero, nada, nothing.

Now, let's think about what our closest allies are likely to do the next time. Do you think that next time when there is suspicion, but no facts, they are going to be likely to talk to us? When they saw how badly we behaved the first time around.

If I were Canada, I would never again tell Americans about suspects.

Our actions are alienating us from the world.

 

[michaeledward]

I should have been more clear in my last statement. I wasn't trying to imply that all the people who didn't wan't to leave GITMO were the Chinese Muslims.

Jeff

JeffJ, do you have a source for this claim?

Between hunger strikes and suicide attempts, I'm thinking the prisoners are not treating detention without end as a vacation.

These prisoners are never going to be released by the United States government. They are never going to face a legal system.

We have backed ourselves into a corner. (Or more accurately, President Bush, Alberto Gonzales, and Donald Rumsfeld have backed us into a corner).

What solution is there, outside of executing all four hundred sixty odd prisoners?