One unintended consequence of screaming “TORTURE!!” every time we don’t give enemy combatants full Social Security benefits and a condominium in Manhattan is that it gives rise to a Boy Cried Wolf effect.
There are legitimate instances of torture, but with all the silliness being peddled as torture nowadays, I wonder how much this effect will hurt the cause of preventing the real thing.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100 degrees? Horrible. It probably feels like air conditioning to some of them.
Dressing as a priest and fake baptizing someone? Crime against humanity!
The fact that you and The Guardian so desperately want to characterize this chickenshit stuff as torture shows your bias.
And what bias would that be exactly? A bias in favor of Americans treating prisoners humanely, as we have for centuries before, going back to Washington? Guilty as charged.
You ae full of shit. Fake baptising someone is not inhumane. America has done far worse to important prisoners in ALL our other wars and most of the countries around the world treat people even worse.
[/quote]
Again, when do we judge ourselves by their standards? Remember America as Reagan’s “shining city on a hill”? Lots of liberated Poles and Czechs do.
And as for fake baptism, I don’t know if you’re a Christian, but if someone, say, chained me and forced water down my throat until I couldn’t avoid pissing on a Bible, I’d consider that torture, and I’m not sure I hold more reverence for the Bible than Muslims do for their Korans.
[quote]hedo wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
You guys can make all the stupid flippant comments you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that Bush and co. have reversed centuries of precedent, and destroyed America’s moral authority. I’d say if you have a guy tearing his hair out because of something you’re doing to him, it’s probably torture.
More importantly, as only pookie picked up on, do none of you realize it’s things like this that lose us the war? The war on terrorism is a media war more than it is a military one. That may suck, and it may not play to our strengths, but it’s a fact. Abu Ghraib had a greater impact on this war than the Second Battle of Fallujah. Humiliating our captives, especially when we target their religion, tells millions of neutral Muslims that we’re exactly what Al Qaeda’s propaganda says we are. Think about it.
G
Your a student of military history right? You have to realize prisoners like the ones held in Gitmo would have been shot at the front, by the troops, prior to the Vietnam war, arguably a much less humane treatment. Irregular troops rarely if ever made it to the rear. The reference that we have always treated prisoners such as these, as guests ,is simply not true.
[/quote]
Sure, I wouldn’t argue that for a second, though I’d say there’s an important difference between what happens in the field and what is condoned or even explicitly authorized at the highest levels.
But more importantly, what’s the record of Western powers in insurgencies outside their borders since WWII? Maybe 1-5 off the top of my head (Malaya vs. Algeria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Vietnam x2). Maybe you give Israel a split in the two intifadas. And we’ve probably got two more going into the loss column in the next few years. Point is, it’s not good. And one of those wars (Vietnam II) nearly broke the U.S. military, while one (Afghanistan I) contributed to the demise of a superpower. We probably shouldn’t be using much of past history here as a positive precedent.
Maybe, but aren’t there higher principles at stake? Would you “destroy the village to save it”? And bear in mind that part of the reason we rushed into torturing captured Al Qaeda and others is because we have so few trained interrogators, and hardly any who speak fluent Arabic. It’s an easy way out, makes you think you’re doing something while avoiding the real hard work.
You honestly believe we have simply failed to “crush” the insurgency through insufficient force? We levelled Fallujah, and use airstrikes and artillery against insurgents (about the worst thing you can do). Didn’t they disucss Vietnam at West Point, ROTC, or OCS? You can hardly accuse the French in Algeria, the Russians in Afghanistan, or the U.S. in Vietnam (to a lesser degree) of a lack of ruthlessness.
This is getting off-topic, but if you want to read something more substantial and thought-provoking than airy little Strategypage posts, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on this:
After all the discussions we’ve had on the topic of detainee abuse, all I have left to say is:
Give them trials or let them go. Keeping people in limbo for 4 years either demonstrates incompetence in building cases against them or is a sign for a disregard of human rights.
Any state organ that allows its detainees to be chained in hot rooms for hours until they shit (and its equivalents) themselves is either deliberately stomping on human rights or is an indicator for the incompetence of its governing bodies.
Anyone who defends the above by rationalizing (“we know so clearly they are guilty, we don’t have to prove it”), comparison (“yeah, but the Saudis behead people”) or moral compromise (“abuse is acceptable if we think someone is evil”), shows imo a clear disregard for human rights and the values the US has been built upon. I think it’s quite a disgrace to find so many here who do that here - presumably out of a misguided motivation to show allegiance to an ideology rather than ideals.
Makkun
[quote]makkun wrote:
After all the discussions we’ve had on the topic of detainee abuse, all I have left to say is:
Give them trials or let them go. Keeping people in limbo for 4 years either demonstrates incompetence in building cases against them or is a sign for a disregard of human rights.
Any state organ that allows its detainees to be chained in hot rooms for hours until they shit (and its equivalents) themselves is either deliberately stomping on human rights or is an indicator for the incompetence of its governing bodies.
Anyone who defends the above by rationalizing (“we know so clearly they are guilty, we don’t have to prove it”), comparison (“yeah, but the Saudis behead people”) or moral compromise (“abuse is acceptable if we think someone is evil”), shows imo a clear disregard for human rights and the values the US has been built upon. I think it’s quite a disgrace to find so many here who do that here - presumably out of a misguided motivation to show allegiance to an ideology rather than ideals.
Makkun[/quote]
Exactly. Its frightening that many americans seem to have a disregard for human rights. That some extremly fucked up stuff happened around the world during the past few years in the name of the USA is well documented and out of question.
Obviously some people get willingly misinformed and/or lack imagination. If people would explicitly see some of the torture technics the cia openly admitted to have used (like “waterboarding”), everyone would be like “oh no, how can they do that”.
There is under no circumstances any excuse for torture. Im deeply afraid that one day this will backfire on america…
[quote]hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
Everyone is prison is innocent…just ask them.
[/quote]
That is why they all get a lawyer and due process.
That, and because no government ever was innocent.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
One unintended consequence of screaming “TORTURE!!” every time we don’t give enemy combatants full Social Security benefits and a condominium in Manhattan is that it gives rise to a Boy Cried Wolf effect.
There are legitimate instances of torture, but with all the silliness being peddled as torture nowadays, I wonder how much this effect will hurt the cause of preventing the real thing.[/quote]
On the other hand, if you do not resist soon enough, where will this end?
Better squasj it when it is still small.
Just because it seems that some still believe detainees are not being charged and given tribunals…
All prisoners at Gitmo are now charged and given hearings. In fact, you can now view how many detainees go through combatant status reviews, and tribunals.
In short, a CSRT must be performed to determine a detainee’s status. If determined that the detainee is an unlawful enemy combatant he receives a trial by military tribunal. The detainee is not only able to appeal his status as an unlawful enemy combatant, but also the verdict of the tribunal.
These appeals go through our very own DC circuit court of appeals…Did old Roosevelt allow that before having unlawful enemy combatants shot? Nope. Did any president, in any war, in our entire history, allow that? Nope.
Furthermore, every single year, a report is now turned over to Congress concerning the status of detainees. This is a requirement now. And has been since 2005.
By the way, some of you do realize that LAWFUL enemy combatants are held without a trial, right? It’s not a matter of criminality. You hold enemy combatants till all hostilities cease. Not as punishment for crimes, but as a logical means to prevent them from going back to battle. So, basically, they could hold detainees till hostilities cease, without being charged with anything.
Maybe they should’ve held off calling them illegal enemy combatants till after all hostilities ceased. Just call them regular old POWs for the time being. Put them to work paving roads and picking up trash. Could make for cheap labor, I suppose. Anyways, upon the total surrender of enemies presently fighting our troops, state the number of detainees we will continue to hold and charge as UNlawful enemy combatants.
Oddly, this would have taken even longer for detainees to receive trials. I mean, hey, it’s obvious that our troops are still engaged with our enemies. So, drop the charges, hold them as POWs till our enemies surrender, and then charge them as unlawful enemy combatants. Not a damn thing could be argued against that. And it would actually be counter-productive to those who criticize us for not giving the detainees trials. Now we wouldn’t have to, till the fighting ceased. Ever thought of it that way?
I’d also like to add that these folks are instructed to make claims of torture.
" In a raid on an al Qaeda cell in Manchester, British authorities seized al Qaeda’s most extensive manual for how to wage war.
A directive lists one mission as “spreading rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy.”
If captured, the manual states, “At the beginning of the trial … the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security before the judge. Complain of mistreatment while in prison.”
The handbook instructs commanders to make sure operatives, or “brothers,” understand what to say if captured.
“Prior to executing an operation, the commander should instruct his soldiers on what to say if they are captured,” the document says. “He should explain that more than once in order to ensure that they have assimilated it. They should, in turn, explain it back to the commander.”
An example might have occurred in a Northern Virginia courtroom in February.
Ahmed Omar Abul Ali, accused of planning to assassinate President Bush, made an appearance in U.S. District Court and promptly told the judge that he had been tortured in Saudi Arabia, including a claim that his back had been whipped. He is accused of meeting there with a senior al Qaeda leader.
Days later, a U.S. attorney filed a court document saying physicians had examined Ali and “found no evidence of any physical mistreatment on the defendant’s back or any other part of his body.”
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
…And as for fake baptism, I don’t know if you’re a Christian, but if someone, say, chained me and forced water down my throat until I couldn’t avoid pissing on a Bible, I’d consider that torture, and I’m not sure I hold more reverence for the Bible than Muslims do for their Korans.
[/quote]
I don’t know what kind of church you belong to, but that is not the way I was baptized.
[quote]makkun wrote:
blah blah blah
Give them trials or let them go.
blah blah blah incompetence
blah blah (“we know so clearly they are guilty, we don’t have to prove it”), blah (“yeah, but the Saudis behead [sic]and the Brits execute[sic] people”) or blah (“abuse is acceptable if we think someone is evil”)
Makkun[/quote]
We should just shoot them all in the head about a dozen times and claimed they jumped a turnstile.
Have any detainees died at the hands of Americans or is Great Britain the only one murdering innocent people off the battlefield in the name of preventing terrorism?
lucasa,
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[…]
We should just shoot them all in the head about a dozen times and claimed they jumped a turnstile.[/quote]
I pass the site about twice a week, where overzealous police shot a complete innocent civilian right in the middle of London. Thanks for handing me this fantastic example, proving my point.[quote]
Have any detainees died at the hands of Americans or is Great Britain the only one murdering innocent people off the battlefield in the name of preventing terrorism?[/quote]
No unfortunately not only the British do that. What’s nice in the UK is that the courts here in the UK have regularly kicked the government in the nuts for overstepping its boundaries - and that you have a public that is mostly appalled when a bunch of wankers in uniform who feel entitled to overstep their boundaries mistreats detainees or other civilians in their care (and thus gravely dishonour the uniform they are wearing); unlike here where apologists for abuse seem to crawl up under every stone you turn.
To repeat - there is never an excuse for even mildly abusing a detainee, POW or juvenile offender, not because they might be innocent, but because they are human. Any organisation who lets that happen, shows how much it fails morally.
As for sloth’s valid comments - yeah, I do recognise that there is now a process (after years of legal battles to enable this little). I personally think this process sucks though. You either give someone POW status (and let the Red Cross in properly, with all rights of POW status) or give them a proper trial (open, civilian, unbiased and with proper access to lawyers - and where proof of abuse is seen as a mitigating circumstance).
I think it shows double standards and clear moral failure to try to create a third path which has created an environment that has allowed abuse described by even the FBI and various other sources.
Makkun
[quote]Ken Kaniff wrote:
Its frightening that many americans seem to have a disregard for human rights. That some extremly fucked up stuff happened around the world during the past few years in the name of the USA is well documented and out of question.[/quote]
The threat of terrorism has turned a lot of Americans into cowards who are willing to condone torture if it means that they can feel safe in exchange.
It’s a national disgrace.
Also, 9-11 traumatized a lot of Americans, and they want someone to be punished in return. Torturing prisoners fulfills that need. That’s why you even see some Americans saying that they don’t care if detainees are guilty or not. It doesn’t matter, just as long as punishment is being served somewhere on their behalf.
It’s another indication of their personal weakness.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
The threat of terrorism has turned a lot of Americans into cowards who are willing to condone torture if it means that they can feel safe in exchange.
[/quote]
Thats the big stupidity. Its been proven over and over again that information won under torture is worth nothing. A few month ago the english could prevent a major terrorist plot without that shit.
Again, what comes around goes around. If one day some americans get captured by, say Iran, they may also claim an “own definition” of human rights…
[quote]Ken Kaniff wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
The threat of terrorism has turned a lot of Americans into cowards who are willing to condone torture if it means that they can feel safe in exchange.
Thats the big stupidity. Its been proven over and over again that information won under torture is worth nothing. A few month ago the english could prevent a major terrorist plot without that shit.
Again, what comes around goes around. If one day some americans get captured by, say Iran, they may also claim an “own definition” of human rights…[/quote]
If we are not careful the Islamic extremists may START acting inhumane?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If we are not careful the Islamic extremists may START acting inhumane?
[/quote]
Heh, brilliant response. Brilliant. Iran hangs rape victims. Not exactly known for it’s gentle treatment of prisoners, as it is.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If we are not careful the Islamic extremists may START acting inhumane?
Heh, brilliant response. Brilliant. Iran hangs rape victims. Not exactly known for it’s gentle treatment of prisoners, as it is. [/quote]
They are asking for it, otherwise they would not have been born female.
Too many people do not understand the nature of our enemy.
Zap,
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If we are not careful the Islamic extremists may START acting inhumane?
Heh, brilliant response. Brilliant. Iran hangs rape victims. Not exactly known for it’s gentle treatment of prisoners, as it is.
They are asking for it, otherwise they would not have been born female.
Too many people do not understand the nature of our enemy.[/quote]
I on the other hand think it’s a completely irrelevant answer: Every one sane knows and disagrees with the human rights practices in Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, etc.
If we want this criticism of practices to be credible though, we need to stay clear of any involvement in them at all.
That’s the whole point of the complaints about abuse: To uphold our own stated values and standards, irrelevant of others’ - that’s what values are about.
Makkun
sigh, and some people here wonder who elected Bush…
Who can be so moronically stupid and evil to argue with “u think were bad?” arguments…