U.N., Guantanamo and the torture question - Page 5

**leejo** · 02-22-2006, 02:49 PM

Let's extend folks' train of thought to the extreme. Suppose we establish a principle in which anyone the military captures and detains is entitled to a trial in which the military must establish cause for that detainee's continued detention.

Imagine how well that system would have worked in WWII, when 250,000 german soldiers surrended at once. What burden would that system have placed on the coalition during Desert Storm, when 10,000s of Iraqi soldiers surrendered en masse. Imagine if they'd done that at the beginning of this war, which continues.

Who pays for these trials? What do you cut? Where does the manpower come from? Couldn't those resources be better spent fighting the war?

What assurance exists that the trials would solve the public relations problems that concern people? Would people who tend to distrust the military or the US change their opinions about either based on the results of these trials? I think the people who basically trust the military and the US would continue to do so and the people who mistrust either or both would dismiss the results of any conviction as the result of a rigged system and the results of any vindication as a PR triumph over the military and US.

Steeler · 02-22-2006, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Being a potential terrorist is not a crime
--
Maybe not, but it might land you in Gitmo. Life is about decisions and certain people are now being cut much less slack than before. Choose wisely young muslim men!

Being a terrorist is your choice. Being a potential terrorist is not your choice, it is the choice of the people who think you are a potential terrorist, be they right or wrong. You have brought this "guilt by association" meme up before. What is the threshhold of suspicion? Are all young Muslim men potential suspects? Does the village pay the price for the sins of its guests? Does the nation? You make it sound as if we are absolved of all moral responsibility to get things RIGHT because they made us do it.

At the moment, the secrecy surrounding all the governments efforts in the GWOT make it impossible for the average citizen to know if we are getting it right. There is only so much we can take on faith.

Quote:

Imagine how well that system would have worked in WWII, when 250,000 german soldiers surrended at once. What burden would that system have placed on the coalition during Desert Storm, when 10,000s of Iraqi soldiers surrendered en masse. Imagine if they'd done that at the beginning of this war, which continues.

As you are so fond of pointing out, this is a new type of war, where there are no true state actors. There are no governments we can hand people back to, or arrange a prisoner exchange, or make peace with in a traditional civilized manner. We are NOT actually holding 250,000 combatants, we are holding several hundred. A case of the always popular apples and oranges.

I think AMosley sums it up best: "Instead of being secretive and trying to fly beneath the radar, I would like to see my government be more clear and direct in their handling of this situation."

The big fear is that this will morph into something that affects the homeland - a new military McCarthyism, where citizens can be rounded up under suspicion of whatever, classified as a security threat, and sent into a legal limbo world. This is the nightmare of the Soviets, of the SS, of dictatorships, of everything that our enlightened democracy is meant to defy. Just a little openness now and then can help prevent lines from being crossed.

SmokingTarpan · 02-22-2006, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Imagine how well that system would have worked in WWII, when 250,000 german soldiers surrended at once.

I believe that the difference is in the ambiguity of this current "war". Say France invades England. Both sides would be fine in holding enemy soldiers without trial or legal access until the end of the war, as it is a tactile conflict with an expectation of an ending. When the war ends, enemy soldiers can go home as the fighting is over. However, a war on terror has no ending, so there is no expectation of ever going home. This is not a real war, but rather a day to day security process. Things are also on a rather limited scope; you don't have army-size amounts of terrorists being captured, but rather onesies and twosies that add up to a pretty limited sum.

As far as cost, well, if you're willing to spend the money to go out and catch someone, you should be willing to spend the money to convict them of something in a fair legal process. If we can spend billions on the conflict in Iraq, I'm pretty sure we can afford putting 500 people through a legal system.

Actually, something really interesting just popped into my head. The World Trade Center bombers- terrorists- received a trip through the US Justice system. So, why do these (supposed) terrorists in Gitmo not get the same chance?

**leejo** · 02-22-2006, 03:31 PM

With regard to where the line is in association, I think that's a judgment call. I trust the judgment of someone whose primary concern is success in the effort to prevent future acts of terror and reject the judgment of someone whose primary concern is that we not accidentally snatch up someone who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. As I said before, I believe that in the end innocent people will, by and large, be released. And yes, I do blame their detention on the terrorists and their state sponsors. Without 9/11 we wouldn't be talking about Gitmo at all, would we?

I understand that you and AMosley tend to agree about where emphasis should be placed in these judgment calls. You prefer that we hold our military to international standards. That's fine. I disagree, I consider your fears misplaced or unfounded, and I thank God that voters who reject your vision of comparing the US actions now to these nightmare dictatorships won the last two elections.

**leejo** · 02-22-2006, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

As far as cost, well, if you're willing to spend the money to go out and catch someone, you should be willing to spend the money to convict them of something in a fair legal process. If we can spend billions on the conflict in Iraq, I'm pretty sure we can afford putting 500 people through a legal system.

Says who? I don't support that connection! You seem to think that a war is like busting some dude who knocks off a 7/11? I don't want to send 250,000 policemen around the world, I want soldiers to take care of business.

Quote:

Actually, something really interesting just popped into my head. The World Trade Center bombers- terrorists- received a trip through the US Justice system. So, why do these (supposed) terrorists in Gitmo not get the same chance?

Because we learned and adapted. Treating terror like a law enforcement issue was a policy that lasted 30 years. That's over and done, because it didn't work.

SmokingTarpan · 02-22-2006, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Says who? I don't support that connection! You seem to think that a war is like busting some dude who knocks off a 7/11? I don't want to send 250,000 policemen around the world, I want soldiers to take care of business.

I can agree with that in regards to the soldiers on the front lines, but back here in the rear? Front liners can capture them and send them back without worrying about the legal process, but once they're safely in detention there should be some sort of process other than "hold them indefinitely".

As far as the cost, well, we're already spending money to feed, clothe and house them. What's one more dime in the bucket for legal costs compared to that, as well as the cost of our troops? If you're going to take prisoners like this, you better be prepared to do things the full way, and not just half.

By the way, where have you been leejo? Haven't seen you around in a bit.

Steeler · 02-22-2006, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I understand that you and AMosley tend to agree about where emphasis should be placed in these judgment calls. You prefer that we hold our military to international standards. That's fine. I disagree, I consider your fears misplaced or unfounded, and I thank God that voters who reject your vision of comparing the US actions now to these nightmare dictatorships won the last two elections.

Also, I hate America. :P

**leejo** · 02-22-2006, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

I can agree with that in regards to the soldiers on the front lines, but back here in the rear? Front liners can capture them and send them back without worrying about the legal process, but once they're safely in detention there should be some sort of process other than "hold them indefinitely".

As I said before, who says there isn't such a process. It's just not a public process.

Quote:

As far as the cost, well, we're already spending money to feed, clothe and house them. What's one more dime in the bucket for legal costs compared to that, as well as the cost of our troops? If you're going to take prisoners like this, you better be prepared to do things the full way, and not just half.

I'll agree with that if you'll agree to cut my taxes by another 5% or so. What's one more dime in the bucket?

EDIT: Incidentally, I did a dry fire exercise with the taxes the other night and, in addition to all the tax that's already been witheld, apparently I get to write a check for about $7200 in a few months. That's a lot of dimes out of my bucket!

Quote:

By the way, where have you been leejo? Haven't seen you around in a bit.

I got burned out on all this sandbox silliness and pursued other interests for a bit.

**DudeMan** · 02-22-2006, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I don't care very much about the Geneva Conventions because I believe they are a fiction dreamed up by a war-weary Europe in an attempt to make war less vicious. Plus, these rules always seem to apply only to the strong side in a conflict - so many outright atrocities go unnoticed and unmentioned by the same people who jump at the opportunity to condemn US acts. It's a farce.

Also, I don't care about the confusion over detainee, fighter, combatant. Here's what I want: I want everyone who is plotting to commit acts of terror targeting the US or our allies to be captured or killed. I support the military and this President in their efforts to effect that goal. I understand that mistakes will be made, and that certain overzealous individuals may occasionally cross a line, but overall the policies I see being put in place seem ok to me.

A- Fricken Men....

AMosely · 02-22-2006, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leejo

I understand that you and AMosley tend to agree about where emphasis should be placed in these judgment calls. You prefer that we hold our military to international standards. That's fine. I disagree, I consider your fears misplaced or unfounded, and I thank God that voters who reject your vision of comparing the US actions now to these nightmare dictatorships won the last two elections.

This does sum it up pretty well. Regarding policy issues like the ones we are debating here, I try to make judgements that emphasize fairness and preserve the interests of all parties - I may not always get it right, but that's what I am striving for. I think you tend to make judgements that are based upon self-interest, whether yours or American, either partially or wholly. This is a very pro-American way of thinking, and it certainly has support here in the U.S.

Make no mistake about it, though - I have no vision of comparing U.S. actions or policy with "nightmare dictatorships." I may invoke historical example, but the situation presented here is unique in may respects. I am only discussing what I percieve to be unfair and problematic policy decisions.

Lastly, you are absolutely correct in thanking God for the way the vote has fallen over the past two Presidential elections. It is now proven fact that it was Rove's mobilization of America's religious right that won those elections - however marginal the victory was (and it was marginal). Make no mistake about it, however - those votes were cast for reasons entirely separate from those that we are discussing here, and I think you will see that contrast in the upcoming midterms. You're already witnessing it in the way that Republicans are (foolishly, in my view) attacking the President on this port authority contract issue - there is quite a sense of political displeasure in America today.

I think there are greater issues at stake in this torture question than simply American politics, though. If we are to start changing the definitions of torture, we can not expect much recourse the next time we find our own soldiers (or possibly even civilians) being abducted, tortured and dehumanized.

**leejo** · 02-22-2006, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

Lastly, you are absolutely correct in thanking God for the way the vote has fallen over the past two Presidential elections. It is now proven fact that it was Rove's mobilization of America's religious right that won those elections - however marginal the victory was (and it was marginal). Make no mistake about it, however - those votes were cast for reasons entirely separate from those that we are discussing here, and I think you will see that contrast in the upcoming midterms. You're already witnessing it in the way that Republicans are (foolishly, in my view) attacking the President on this port authority contract issue - there is quite a sense of political displeasure in America today.

Ha! Who gives a good damn what Karl Rove thinks other than people who think he's the secret puppet master? It's like saying every democrat in the country votes for idiots because James Carville flaps his lips a little: they're so stupid and blinded by idiology they just can't help themselves. It is now a proven fact, is it? I suspect your standards for proving this "fact" are far lower than your standards for proving, for example, that the US military does not commit atrocities as a matter of policy at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib.

Also, I don't make decisions based solely on self-interest, but I don't like the way others are perfectly happy to make decisions at my expense.

Quote:

I think there are greater issues at stake in this torture question than simply American politics, though. If we are to start changing the definitions of torture, we can not expect much recourse the next time we find our own soldiers (or possibly even civilians) being abducted, tortured and dehumanized.

I have two problems with this statement.

First, I do not expect much recourse NOW when I find our soldiers and civilians abducted, tortured, and dehumanized. You forgot beheaded, btw. When has a single person ever been held accountable under the Geneva Conventions for torturing or killing a US service man or civilian?

The only recourse that exists is earned by our soldiers in the field, not by mid-level beurecrats at the UN in NY City. You, and they, have an effete definition of torture.

Which brings me to the second problem I have with your statement...

Second, I think that you and your ilk are the ones attempting to redefine torture. We all know what real torture is, and I suspect that at heart we all know what torture is NOT. Making someone cold, or sleepy, or embarrassed is a long way away from breaking fingers, pulling nails, shocking, cigarette burns, or watching one's family's rape and murder.

I have a few friends who have gone through POW training as part of their special forces or pilot training. Every single one of them has endured as much or more "torture" as what we've seen out of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

Watch Marathon Man and ask yourself how many cold, sleepless, panty-on-head wearing nights you'd happily spend to get out of having to answer the question: Is it safe?

Ransack · 02-22-2006, 05:31 PM

Right on, Leejo....by some postings here, every prison and military boot camp would be technically guilty of torture, in additon to those juvenile work camps.

Should we bring out the Leroy Nieman paintings?....no, because that would violate the Geneva Conventions....(c'mon, what movie that was from?). Just trying to lighten things up in here...

Steeler · 02-22-2006, 05:44 PM

Ilk? Time to get the effete out of this thread.

SmokingTarpan · 02-22-2006, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xRANSACKx

Right on, Leejo....by some postings here, every prison and military boot camp would be technically guilty of torture, in additon to those juvenile work camps.

I personally don't think any torture (actual torture) is going on down in Gitmo. I just have issues with holding non-combatants for years on end without some sort of legal process. Public legal process, that is.

Ransack · 02-22-2006, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

I personally don't think any torture (actual torture) is going on down in Gitmo. I just have issues with holding non-combatants for years on end without some sort of legal process. Public legal process, that is.

You know what, I agree. Get the info out of them, and then set up a military tribunal. They will have lawyers and all. If guilty, then say hello to Fort Leavenworth or wherever there is a max security military prison

02-22-2006, 02:49 PM	#61 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: U.N., Guantanamo and the torture question Let's extend folks' train of thought to the extreme. Suppose we establish a principle in which anyone the military captures and detains is entitled to a trial in which the military must establish cause for that detainee's continued detention. Imagine how well that system would have worked in WWII, when 250,000 german soldiers surrended at once. What burden would that system have placed on the coalition during Desert Storm, when 10,000s of Iraqi soldiers surrendered en masse. Imagine if they'd done that at the beginning of this war, which continues. Who pays for these trials? What do you cut? Where does the manpower come from? Couldn't those resources be better spent fighting the war? What assurance exists that the trials would solve the public relations problems that concern people? Would people who tend to distrust the military or the US change their opinions about either based on the results of these trials? I think the people who basically trust the military and the US would continue to do so and the people who mistrust either or both would dismiss the results of any conviction as the result of a rigged system and the results of any vindication as a PR triumph over the military and US. Last edited by leejo; 02-22-2006 at 03:08 PM.

02-22-2006, 03:31 PM	#64 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: U.N., Guantanamo and the torture question With regard to where the line is in association, I think that's a judgment call. I trust the judgment of someone whose primary concern is success in the effort to prevent future acts of terror and reject the judgment of someone whose primary concern is that we not accidentally snatch up someone who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. As I said before, I believe that in the end innocent people will, by and large, be released. And yes, I do blame their detention on the terrorists and their state sponsors. Without 9/11 we wouldn't be talking about Gitmo at all, would we? I understand that you and AMosley tend to agree about where emphasis should be placed in these judgment calls. You prefer that we hold our military to international standards. That's fine. I disagree, I consider your fears misplaced or unfounded, and I thank God that voters who reject your vision of comparing the US actions now to these nightmare dictatorships won the last two elections.

02-22-2006, 05:31 PM	#72 (permalink)
Ransack Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Age: 39 Posts: 469	Re: U.N., Guantanamo and the torture question Right on, Leejo....by some postings here, every prison and military boot camp would be technically guilty of torture, in additon to those juvenile work camps. Should we bring out the Leroy Nieman paintings?....no, because that would violate the Geneva Conventions....(c'mon, what movie that was from?). Just trying to lighten things up in here... __________________ \|TG-1stMIP\| Ransack 1st Mechanized Infantry Platoon (C-Team)

02-22-2006, 05:44 PM	#73 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,952	Re: U.N., Guantanamo and the torture question Ilk? Time to get the effete out of this thread. __________________

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links