U.N., Guantanamo and the torture question - Page 3

**CingularDuality** · 02-20-2006, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freekyE

if the US government uses torture, it is no better than saddam

PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

Those are exclamation points, not periods.

And how do you define torture? Is ripping their finger nails off slowly, letting them heal and then ripping them off again torture? I think we all agree it is. How about playing loud, annoying music and sounds and randomly turning their lights on in the middle of the night? What about keeping their living quarters 15 degrees warmer or cooler than is comfortable and alternating those temps? What about threatening them, is that torture? Threatening to kill them if they don't spill the beans? What about threatening to kill their family? Kill their religious leader? What if you threaten to burn their Koran, you don't actually do it, but you bring a bag of ashes to the interrogation room the next day. What if you bring their Koran back to them the day after that?

Look. I could "torture" just about anyone here without ever harming you physically or mentally. There's a huge difference between our interrogation techniques and Saddam's. AbuGhraib was a horrible mistake that I hope never happens again, but don't pretend it's an example of business as usual for the USA. Coercing people to give up information is both an art and a science, and there is no big, bold line that separates methods that are and are not tortuous. It's very subjective.

**DudeMan** · 02-20-2006, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icky

Indeed. When did everyone forget about this? It is the reason for the war in Iraq.

Here's a simple summary (edit: well it started as a summary

)...
UN: Hey Iraq, we have a rule intended to prevent bad people from developing weapons of mass destruction. We want to send inspectors to check out what you are doing.

Iraq: Sure, we have nothing to hide

UN: Hey Iraq, you guys aren't letting our inspectors do their jobs

Iraq: We don't have to listen to you, we are kicking these guys out

UN: Iraq, don't do that or we are going to have to do something

Iraq: Screw you losers

UN: Iraq, we are going to squeeze you financially if you don't listen

Iraq: Fine, you will be responsible for thousands of starving babies in our country. We can't possibly afford to rebuild our army and feed our people at the same time.

... time passes and children starve ...

UN: Iraq, we suspect you are up to something, let the weapons inspectors back in please

Iraq: Screw you losers

UN: Iraq, please let the inspectors in

Iraq: Screw you losers

UN: Iraq, let the inspectors back in or we will have to take military action

Iraq: Screw you infidels (note the attitude change here

)

UN: Iraq, please let the inspectors back in (and the obvious lack of will)

Iraq: Ok sure! Just kidding. Screw you spineless dogs.

UN: Iraq, here's a deadline, let them in or we'll do something. We mean it!

Iraq: No.

... deadline gets close...

Iraq: Ok fine, we have nothing to hide. Send them in.

...

Iraq: No wait, we don't accept it.

(repeat above deadline thing)

US: GRRRR... FREAKING DO SOMETHING UN

Iraq: Ok fine, send them in.

UN: Iraq, you aren't letting them inspect anything.

Iraq: Of course we are, it just takes time to hide things, er I mean TIDY things before they visit sites.

Inspectors: Here's our report on what we were able to see in Iraq - something is better than nothing, I suppose

UN: Ok, I guess everything is ok in Iraq

Inspectors: Huh?

US: Wha? Come ON UN!!!

UN: Iraq, I guess this isn't good enough. We need better access or we really really are going to do something this time.

Iraq: That's all you get, pigs. Get these inspectors out of here.

UN: Iraq, you are naughty. Let's spend a few more years doing nothing and then see if you'll cooperate.

US: AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGGG!!!! UN, someone has to do something about this. If you won't, we will.

UN: We really don't want to do anything. Do you have any more obvious incriminating evidence that we could ignore?

US: Well I'm sure we could come up with something if you really thought it would help. We'll just do like Barney says and use our imaginations!
(I'll skip the part about how the US tries to convince people that action is required.)

UN: Thanks for that US, we're gonna go ahead and do nothing.

US: UN, you are worthless. We're going to war.

UN: Please don't

US: Shut up

oh dear, sorry ... hans blicks or whatever the chief inspectors name was, was in iraq until the eve of the war saying they had no weapons and that sadam had cooperated with most of their demands.

no different therefore to the USA saying come to quantanimo but no talky to prisoners..... give and take, i do not equate the USA to Iraq and sadam just saying, that put those two events side by side and they are similar with regards to what the UN wanted and what they got... if the UN said tomorrow you have till march to let them speak to whom they wish, i doubt america would... that would be breaking a deadline...

and lets not forget while we are portraying the coalition as great invaders that although (i believe) some good if not alot of good has come from deposing sadam... we didnt find those weapons that sadam said and the UN inspectors said were not there....

Quote:

Originally Posted by freekyE

if the US government uses torture, it is no better than saddam

PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

im sorry but i just picture you sittting there with your fingers in your ears going.... USA is just as bad as sadam...la la la la la la la la not listening la la la la la la la la..... and while that might be effective in certain parts of the world... well ill say no more i dont want to offend.

**DudeMan** · 02-20-2006, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Those are exclamation points, not periods.

And how do you define torture? Is ripping their finger nails off slowly, letting them heal and then ripping them off again torture? I think we all agree it is. How about playing loud, annoying music and sounds and randomly turning their lights on in the middle of the night? What about keeping their living quarters 15 degrees warmer or cooler than is comfortable and alternating those temps? What about threatening them, is that torture? Threatening to kill them if they don't spill the beans? What about threatening to kill their family? Kill their religious leader? What if you threaten to burn their Koran, you don't actually do it, but you bring a bag of ashes to the interrogation room the next day. What if you bring their Koran back to them the day after that?

Look. I could "torture" just about anyone here without ever harming you physically or mentally. There's a huge difference between our interrogation techniques and Saddam's. AbuGhraib was a horrible mistake that I hope never happens again, but don't pretend it's an example of business as usual for the USA. Coercing people to give up information is both an art and a science, and there is no big, bold line that separates methods that are and are not tortuous. It's very subjective.

i agree to the most part, but also say that abu gharib, given that there was a war on and information was lives, if i were in command, i would certainly remove cameras from the base, but im not so sure i would not use a few 'unethical' means on the enemy... but hey thats me, lucky i am not in command... i dont have the restraint.

AMosely · 02-20-2006, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

And how do you define torture?

I think that is the main question here, at least it is for me. That's why I put 'the Torture question' in the title of this post, as that's what I am most concerned with. I believe that the U.S. has broken international law yet again.

I urge folks to read the report that I posted and am discussing, especially page 21, section 3.

Part 43 of this section on Torture reads:
The prohibition of torture and "outrages upon personal digtnity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment" is also contained in common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, to which the United States is a party. Moreover, the prohibition of t orture is part of jus cogens. Torture and other inhumane acts causing severe pain and suffering, or serious injury to the body or to mental or physical health are also prohibited under international criminal law and in certain instances can amount to crimes against humanity and war crimes.(46)

There is documented evidence of at least one man who died during CIA interrogation in Afghanistan. There is photographic evidence of torture, as defined above, at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. There are many eye witness reports of torture, as defined above, at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

The White House saw this coming. In order to counter this, beginning in 2001 the Administration of the United States has been re-writing policy with regard to interrogation and torture. This is well summarized in part 46, page 22 of the aforementioned report.

The the above is taken as fact, which I believe it should, the question becomes this: does America have the right to singlehandedly re-write international law which it signed and agreed to decades earlier? Does it then have the right to break international law?

**DudeMan** · 02-20-2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

I think that is the main question here, at least it is for me. That's why I put 'the Torture question' in the title of this post, as that's what I am most concerned with. I believe that the U.S. has broken international law yet again.

I urge folks to read the report that I posted and am discussing, especially page 21, section 3.

Part 43 of this section on Torture reads:
The prohibition of torture and "outrages upon personal digtnity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment" is also contained in common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, to which the United States is a party. Moreover, the prohibition of t orture is part of jus cogens. Torture and other inhumane acts causing severe pain and suffering, or serious injury to the body or to mental or physical health are also prohibited under international criminal law and in certain instances can amount to crimes against humanity and war crimes.(46)

There is documented evidence of at least one man who died during CIA interrogation in Afghanistan. There is photographic evidence of torture, as defined above, at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. There are many eye witness reports of torture, as defined above, at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

The White House saw this coming. In order to counter this, beginning in 2001 the Administration of the United States has been re-writing policy with regard to interrogation and torture. This is well summarized in part 46, page 22 of the aforementioned report.

The the above is taken as fact, which I believe it should, the question becomes this: does America have the right to singlehandedly re-write international law which it signed and agreed to decades earlier? Does it then have the right to break international law?

laws are always subject to reform, and this is a far different kind of war from any that has been faced in the 1940's.... the fact is circumstances have changed somewhat. we are not dealing with a state, with a fixed capital, and an armed forces to anhialate. and that is what those rules were designed around.

the fact is, we are now faced with an enemy that cannot be seen, who acts in complete secrecy, and one that is dedicated enough not to respond to: "if you dont tell us about your fellow pals... we will.... keep you in prison a bit longer".... im not entirely happy with this situation, but it doesnt change the fact.

as for people dying in custody, that is a tradgedy, but it does not just happen in guantanimo bay or afghanistan, it has happened in proisons across this country and im betting yours aswell. when that happens we have to assess the situation that led to that death. however, i would not say that one man dying is proof of horrific torture.

im inclined to agree with cing, that torture has to be defined, and possibly with your (quoted) deffinition changed. if huiliation is torture then about 10 bullies at my school were quilty of such 10years ago...humiliation when dealing with the extremist pride is a fitting excercise... sweat boxes that are described as torture are used in prisons on the US mainland are they not?

what we fail to see is that terror plots have been stopped because of information we have recieved (if im to believe reports in the media from police officials). im not sure about guantanimo because little is released, but if it were a completly pointless and non productive exercise there would be no point doing it. so how about ask what quantanimo has produced. #

just one point of view.

Steeler · 02-20-2006, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

laws are always subject to reform, and this is a far different kind of war from any that has been faced in the 1940's.... the fact is circumstances have changed somewhat. we are not dealing with a state, with a fixed capital, and an armed forces to anhialate. and that is what those rules were designed around.

I'm curious, how does the shape of the battlefield alter our basic responsibility to human dignity, justice, and our moral duties? When torture - real hands down blood and sweat torture - is a shaky intelligence-gathering method at best, how does the character of our enemy justify actions which, 50 years ago, we decided were unjust?

Also, are we attempting to justify here the rough but common interrogation techniques practiced in a war zone, or the brutalities of Abu Gharaib, which were not so much for intel as for plain old ugly human spite, in many cases?

Quote:

im inclined to agree with cing, that torture has to be defined, and possibly with your (quoted) deffinition changed. if huiliation is torture then about 10 bullies at my school were quilty of such 10years ago...humiliation when dealing with the extremist pride is a fitting excercise... sweat boxes that are described as torture are used in prisons on the US mainland are they not?

Two things on this point:
1) We still have no judicial process by which we can determine the relative guilt of the inmates at Guantanamo. Until a system is established, it is a detention run entirely on the good faith of the executive branch and the military. Such an arrangement is anathema to our legal system, which recognizes universal human rights regardless of citizenship. While you won't find me crying for any hardened bomber fundamentalists there, it sets a bad precedent, both for our nation and our relationship with the rest of the world.
2) Even ignoring the fact that degrading treatment is specifically mentioned in the Geneva Conventions, humilitaion would be considered a minor form or "torture," if that. However, this has been going on for years. If it's a health club, then I guess we don't have to worry much. But if what the UN and inspector reports say is true - that we lock them up, interrogate them daily, play mind games on them, waterboard them, deny them basic human dignities on a frequent basis over many many years, then we are tortuing these people. If we end up having to release them, they will be broken and traumatized whether they deserved it or not. And that is a problem.

Quote:

what we fail to see is that terror plots have been stopped because of information we have recieved (if im to believe reports in the media from police officials). im not sure about guantanimo because little is released, but if it were a completly pointless and non productive exercise there would be no point doing it. so how about ask what quantanimo has produced.

I think it's impossible for anyone to make a sound decision on Guantanamo without knowing this. It is, however, the kind of information that will never be released, particularly if it is no longer producing anything worthwhile. I would tend to believe that this was a temporary solution to a sticky wartime problem that has since been left to fester because there is no easy or politically sound way out of it. The momentum of bad leadership will mean that the camp will outlive its usefulness by a wide margin.

**CingularDuality** · 02-20-2006, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

1) We still have no judicial process by which we can determine the relative guilt of the inmates at Guantanamo. Until a system is established, it is a detention run entirely on the good faith of the executive branch and the military. Such an arrangement is anathema to our legal system, which recognizes universal human rights regardless of citizenship. While you won't find me crying for any hardened bomber fundamentalists there, it sets a bad precedent, both for our nation and our relationship with the rest of the world.

I'm not saying that everything's peachy, but let's be clear: these prisoners do NOT belong in the US legal system and do NOT deserve the same constitutional protections that are afforded a regular criminal.

Steeler · 02-20-2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I'm not saying that everything's peachy, but let's be clear: these prisoners ... do NOT deserve the same constitutional protections that are afforded a regular criminal.

What's the basis for that argument? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just wondering what the reasoning behind that is. By constitutional protections, do you mean representation? Presumption of innocence? Right to a trial?

SmokingTarpan · 02-20-2006, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I'm not saying that everything's peachy, but let's be clear: these prisoners do NOT belong in the US legal system and do NOT deserve the same constitutional protections that are afforded a regular criminal.

Are they animals to do with as we please, then? Not sayaing that's what you mean, but I'm sure there are some that think this way. I think it's sad when our own Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal and deserve certain rights, yet we would be able to turn around and say, "Well, except in this case."

As far as torture goes, I believe something important is being overlooked. Torture really only gets you what you want to hear. Think about it. You capture a grunt, all he knows is his current mission (if he even had one to begin with), which is most likely over and done with anyway. Is any amount of beating, waterboarding or nail-pulling really going to get you anything more than that? Especially in the case of terrorism, where it's basically a phone call in the dark from a random person that only says, "It's time"? Think about what would you say, if you thought it would stop your captors from putting needles into your eyes.

If you caught a high-ranking person, then tortue might glean you something useful. As far as I can tell though, all we really have in G-Bay are grunts- if that. I wouldn't be surprised if they spent the rest of their natural lives in that place, all for pretty much nothing. Either way, I'd say that us being against torture and then turning around and using it is intensely hypocritical. Wouldn't be the first time, though.

Ransack · 02-20-2006, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

...where it's basically a phone call in the dark from a random person that only says, "It's time"?

I am sure even a low level operative has certain knowledge of events, places, tactics, etc. They may have a small piece of info, another person has another piece and you fit it together like a puzzle.

And i doubt Mr. Terrorist is sitting around in the dark watching 'American Idol' & waiting for the phone to ring.

**CingularDuality** · 02-20-2006, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

Are they animals to do with as we please, then? Not sayaing that's what you mean, but I'm sure there are some that think this way. I think it's sad when our own Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal and deserve certain rights, yet we would be able to turn around and say, "Well, except in this case."

Please don't confuse my statement that "terrorist prisoners don't belong in the US justice system" and "torture is a gray area" to mean that I want prisoners in gitmo tortured. They're two completely seperate arguments that apply to this situation in different ways.

Quote:

As far as torture goes, I believe something important is being overlooked. Torture really only gets you what you want to hear. Think about it. You capture a grunt, all he knows is his current mission (if he even had one to begin with), which is most likely over and done with anyway. Is any amount of beating, waterboarding or nail-pulling really going to get you anything more than that? Especially in the case of terrorism, where it's basically a phone call in the dark from a random person that only says, "It's time"? Think about what would you say, if you thought it would stop your captors from putting needles into your eyes.

If you caught a high-ranking person, then tortue might glean you something useful. As far as I can tell though, all we really have in G-Bay are grunts- if that. I wouldn't be surprised if they spent the rest of their natural lives in that place, all for pretty much nothing. Either way, I'd say that us being against torture and then turning around and using it is intensely hypocritical. Wouldn't be the first time, though.

Heh... You think we expect to get usable information from any single person? That's funny. You watch a lot of TV?

**CingularDuality** · 02-20-2006, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xRANSACKx

I am sure even a low level operative has certain knowledge of events, places, tactics, etc. They may have a small piece of info, another person has another piece and you fit it together like a puzzle.

And i doubt Mr. Terrorist is sitting around in the dark watching 'American Idol' & waiting for the phone to ring.

Exactly.

AMosely · 02-20-2006, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xRANSACKx

I am sure even a low level operative has certain knowledge of events, places, tactics, etc. They may have a small piece of info, another person has another piece and you fit it together like a puzzle. .

I would argue that this is rarely the case. The small pieces of information, especially from a well designed terrorist network, do not connect. This opinion is based on reading various accounts of CIA and Mossad operatives.

Also, Tarpan is completely correct in saying that torture usually only gets you what you want to hear. Just ask John McCain, he can tell you first hand that it simply doesn't work - it doesn't pay, and it creates more enemies. Terrorism works better than torture.

Ransack · 02-20-2006, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

I would argue that this is rarely the case. The small pieces of information, especially from a well designed terrorist network, do not connect. This opinion is based on reading various accounts of CIA and Mossad operatives.

And would you be willing to gamble your life or the life of your family on "rarely"? I sure wouldn't...that doesn't mean i want anyone tortured, though.....

**CingularDuality** · 02-20-2006, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

I would argue that this is rarely the case. The small pieces of information, especially from a well designed terrorist network, do not connect. This opinion is based on reading various accounts of CIA and Mossad operatives.

Also, Tarpan is completely correct in saying that torture usually only gets you what you want to hear. Just ask John McCain, he can tell you first hand that it simply doesn't work - it doesn't pay, and it creates more enemies.

Wrong and wrong.

Small pieces of information OFTEN connect. How do you think any sort of investigation works?

And you'd have to define torture as "peeling fingernails while expecting detailed plans to the enemy base" in order to make your second statement correct.

C'mon, guys. Let's be a bit more realistic here. Think about what you're saying.

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links