Waterboarding: is it ever ok?

[Unspeaked]

Is it ever OK for the US government to resort to waterboarding, or is it wrong under any circumstance?

I believe the stand the current administration is trying to take is that it should only be used in a last resort, "ticking time-bomb" scenario.

What do you think?

[Kashchei]

I strongly believe that waterboarding is acceptable under two conditions: first, that it is only done by Americans; second, that it is done while a Republican is in office. I think the logic of my argument will stand up to anything any leebrul can throw at it.

[dukebound85]

hasnt there been a thread or two on this already?

[Unspeaked]

hasnt there been a thread or two on this already?

I did a quick search and nothing came up; did I miss something?

[.Andy]

There's already a thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=457948) here.

[Unspeaked]

There's already a thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=457948) here.

Yeah, I noticed that one - sort of was interested in waterboarding specifically, but if this thread seems to overlap, then just ignore it...

[CortexRock]

I believe that physical torture of any kind is pointless, because the human body will always have a breaking point (regardless of resistance training or religious fervour) beyond the control of the mental faculties. Torture victims have quite often admitted to confessing to crimes they didn't commit just to make the pain stop. If that's the case, I'm not sure how useful it is.

How far is too far? I'm just glad I'm not in a position where I have to make that choice - but Winston Churchill said something in 1930 which resonates in me:

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realise that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. Antiquated War Offices, weak, incompetent, or arrogant Commanders, untrustworthy allies, hostile neutrals, malignant Fortune, ugly surprises, awful miscalculations — all take their seats at the Council Board on the morrow of a declaration of war. Always remember, however sure you are that you could easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think he also had a chance.

[PlaceofDis]

no. unacceptable under all circumstances, as with all torture.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Would Jesus Torture? then why are we Mr Bush? uncalled for and unconstitutional in my view. People will say anything under torture meaning its unreliable.

[zap2]

Is it ever OK for the US government to resort to waterboarding, or is it wrong under any circumstance?


No,never. Not only for the US, but for all humans.

Its not effective and not how we should treat our fellow human.

[skunk]

Not. OK. Evar.

[Cromulent]

The biggest argument against torture is the fact that the information gained could either be incorrect or just plain false.

I'm not sure of any situation were I would feel comfortable with torture.

Part of the price we pay living in a liberal society is that we accept increased risk by letting people live their lives as they choose. I'm not about to ask for any constraint to personal liberty even if it is in the name of protection. It is just another risk we take if you have a liberal political outlook. If you want to have a hard line outlook why bother fighting the terrorists? You both want the same thing.

[solvs]

Yeah, kinda thought this was covered under my other thread, but that's ok. No, it isn't. Because it doesn't work for one. But the more obvious should be that it's deplorable. Ends not justifying the means and all. We criticize and even have prosecuted others for doing this, but we do it, and the media barely covers it. It's a war crime, admitted to by the higher ups who at the very least ok'ed it, at the worst made it gave the actual orders themselves. You'd think someone would care, but we don't, so that makes it ok.

[Desertrat]

I guess I'd have "situational ethics" in a very limited fashion. While my basic answer is No Torture, let me offer a couple of hypothets.

Were I a combat leader in the field and my unit captured an enemy who knew where his own unit was setting up an ambush, he'd probably be subjected to some sort of torture. I wouldn't ask any of my men to do anything. I wouldn't really want to. But the lives of my men are very much more important to me than anything else.

The other is on the far-fetched side. Say I had custody of someone who knew the whereabouts of some major explosive device. Say I had knowledge that it would explode within some short-ish period of time, killing many non-combatant people. I'd do whatever I thought would inform me of the location of the device.

But I don't see that getting names and addresses is as important as staying as close to our own ideals as is possible.

'Rat

[imac/cheese]

It is never ok. Not even to save the lives of others. Torture of any kind is dispicable.

[Prof.]

Any form of torture is okay. If it means protecting the United States and its ppl from harm then damn right it's okay.

[Gelfin]

The other is on the far-fetched side. Say I had custody of someone who knew the whereabouts of some major explosive device. Say I had knowledge that it would explode within some short-ish period of time, killing many non-combatant people. I'd do whatever I thought would inform me of the location of the device.

One of the major problems we face in opposing torture is the number of people who do not realize just how far-fetched this scenario is. You have to suppose that you already have access to an unimpeachable source of intelligence that can tell you:

- That there is a bomb.
- When the bomb is scheduled to explode.
- Who is involved in the plot.
- What pieces of information each member of the plot knows.

Whether obtained a single source or many, this is detailed, intimate access to the inner workings of a plot, and yet you must assume that your source(s) can reveal all this to you, but does not know the one, single fact that would allow you to stop it: the location of the bomb.

Further, you must suppose that you know where to obtain a conspirator who knows that one piece of information, you know for certain that he knows it, and you just happen to apprehend him at a time when a bad filmmaker would be tempted to overlay a countdown on the corner of the screen.

Okay, let's allow for a moment that this incredibly unlikely series of events actually comes to pass. If I am the conspirator in that case, my goal isn't to hide the location from you permanently. It's just to run out the clock. To that end, I would "crack" fairly easily (make it just hard enough to not entirely disappoint the sadists) and provide you a rehearsed false location that would take longer to search than the amount of time remaining. For instance, I might claim the device was buried in concrete at a large construction site. It would take you an hour just to get ground-penetrating radar equipment on-site, and many more just to establish that I was lying.

In the meantime, what, do you keep torturing me "just in case?" For that matter, if you manage to search the entire false lead before time runs out, you figure out I'm lying and come back. Then what? Time is even shorter. You don't have a lot of time to waste with me, but I don't have to kill much more time either. The lack of time you have to coerce me is also a lack of time to verify anything I say. Next time I tell you something, what do you do?

[skunk]

Were I a combat leader in the field and my unit captured an enemy who knew where his own unit was setting up an ambush, he'd probably be subjected to some sort of torture. I wouldn't ask any of my men to do anything. I wouldn't really want to. But the lives of my men are very much more important to me than anything else.

The other is on the far-fetched side. Say I had custody of someone who knew the whereabouts of some major explosive device. Say I had knowledge that it would explode within some short-ish period of time, killing many non-combatant people. I'd do whatever I thought would inform me of the location of the device.If you could provide one single instance of either of these scenarios actually happening, let alone of torture producing a result, your "hypothetical" might be of some value. As it is, I suspect you cannot, and it is not.

[Eraserhead]

Not. OK. Evar.

Torture should be illegal, if it is actually a "bomb ticking" scenario then it should be so plain that its the best course of action that you should do it anyway regardless of the legal penalties, and you can deal with the mess afterwards.

Otherwise it should never be used it dehumanises you, it makes you look bad in the eyes of everyone else in the world and the information gathered by it is often inaccurate.

[PlaceofDis]

Any form of torture is okay. If it means protecting the United States and its ppl from harm then damn right it's okay.

i wish this was sarcasm, but sadly its probably not.


what good does torture do? at all?

none. end of story.

[Much Ado]

Any form of torture is okay.

Contentious...

If it means protecting the United States and its ppl from harm then damn right it's okay.

But it doesn't protect. That's been said so many times.

[Prof.]

If terrorists have pertinent info about an imminent attack on the US, isn't it our duty to do anything and everything to get that info to stop the attack?

[PlaceofDis]

If terrorists have pertinent info about an imminent attack on the US, isn't it our duty to do anything and everything to get that info to stop the attack?

sure, but torture isn't going to help at all.

[Eraserhead]

If terrorists have pertinent info about an imminent attack on the US, isn't it our duty to do anything and everything to get that info to stop the attack?

But it the process we cause 5 billion people in the world to hate/dislike us, that is a good way forward :rolleyes:.

[Prof.]

sure, but torture isn't going to help at all.
Then what do you suggest?
But it the process we cause 5 billion people in the world to hate/dislike us, that is a good way forward :rolleyes:.
The US does not torture. We send them out to other countries to be tortured.:cool:

[Much Ado]

If terrorists have pertinent info about an imminent attack on the US, isn't it our duty to do anything and everything to get that info to stop the attack?

I think I saw that episode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_%28TV_series%29), too.

[Prof.]

I think I saw that episode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_%28TV_series%29), too.
I don't watch 24. Never have.

I don't even know who the main character is.

[Eraserhead]

The US does not torture. We send them out to other countries to be tortured.:cool:

Do you seriously think anyone cares which country is actually carrying out the torture when its so blindingly obvious that you are sanctioning it.

[Much Ado]

I don't watch 24. Never have.

I think you miss my point.

[skunk]

Then what do you suggest?Sticking to your principles, if you have any, and abiding by all of those international treaties to which your country is a signatory, which ban such activities unequivocally. Torture is not acceptable, period. Nor has it ever been demonstrated to have prevented an attack, so you would soil your linen to no purpose.

[Prof.]

I still think, under the right circumstances, it's acceptable.

[skunk]

I still think, under the right circumstances, it's acceptable.For what reason? You have no evidence that it has ever worked in the way you imagine, and it violates every humanitarian principle you claim your country stands for.

[Eraserhead]

I still think, under the right circumstances, it's acceptable.

Maybe, see my previous post:

Torture should be illegal, if it is actually a "bomb ticking" scenario then it should be so plain that its the best course of action that you should do it anyway regardless of the legal penalties, and you can deal with the mess afterwards.

Otherwise it should never be used it dehumanises you, it makes you look bad in the eyes of everyone else in the world and the information gathered by it is often inaccurate.

Also Skunk is probably right, I doubt the "bomb ticking" scenario has actually happened.

[imac/cheese]

But it the process we cause 5 billion people in the world to hate/dislike us, that is a good way forward :rolleyes:.

This makes it look like you think torture is wrong because people will not like us if we do it. In my opinion, torture is wrong because it is a hateful, deplorable act that eats away the soul of both the victim and the torturer. To intentionally bring agony to another human is completely horrible no matter what the reason. It is entirely devoid of love for fellow humankind.

[Eraserhead]

^^ See the quote in my post above yours. I give 3 reasons why torture is unacceptable, I agree with your point.

[solvs]

I guess I'd have "situational ethics" in a very limited fashion. While my basic answer is No Torture, let me offer a couple of hypothets.
Even if those were true, though I guess others have already pointed out that they probably wouldn't be, you can't guarantee the information is accurate. You could be leading your people to an ambush. Or the guy could be making it all up just so you stop. Maybe he thinks he's going to die anyway and doesn't care. We've been over this. This is not the way to do things. Even ignoring the obvious ethical implications, it doesn't work. Period. Ask anyone who knows.

Not to mention the part you missed about this not just being some random situation where there's a ticking time bomb. In the cases we've speaking of, orders came down from the top. There was no immediate threat. We did get someone to confess to things he couldn't possibly have done, but other than a lot of useless info that didn't do anything to help us, it has hurt us in the standing of the world. The negative consequences have far outweighed the perceived good, and that's only what we know about. Not to mention the outright lie that we don't torture, told right after the ok was given to torture.

Any form of torture is okay. If it means protecting the United States and its ppl from harm then damn right it's okay.
That's the worst possible gross generalization. Using that logic, we could use it at any time on anyone. We fought against the British to get away from that type of thing. To be better than that. We prosecuted others when they did it to our people. Now we have no recourse if they do it to us. What are we going to say? How dare they do what we've been doing? And even if they're worse, who wants to even be compared to that and have to say "well at least we're not as bad as the terrorists"? That doesn't make me feel better

If terrorists have pertinent info about an imminent attack on the US, isn't it our duty to do anything and everything to get that info to stop the attack?
They don't, this method doesn't work, and as we've pointed out time and time again, there are far more accurate ways to do so, like actual police work, complete with verification to protect both the innocent and our own people doing the investigating.

Then what do you suggest?
Not torturing. Seriously, you can't be saying if we don't torture there are no other options. It's not like we have to let the guilty go free if we aren't torturing them. There is middle ground here. They don't need to do this to do their jobs, and actually this hurts our people because besides having to follow up on more bogus leads, even our allies don't trust us enough to help. Let alone informants. Without them, we have nothing.

The US does not torture. We send them out to other countries to be tortured.:cool:
We do torture, and this is not cool.

I still think, under the right circumstances, it's acceptable.
It isn't.

[solvs]

You really want to trust these people to decide who to torture:

U.S. has Mandela on terrorist list (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-30-watchlist_N.htm)

And:

Air marshals grounded in list mix-ups (http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080430/NATION/946059998/1001)
False identifications based on a terrorist no-fly list have for years prevented some federal air marshals from boarding flights they are assigned to protect, according to officials with the agency, which is finally taking steps to address the problem.

Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) familiar with the situation say the mix-ups, in which marshals are mistaken for terrorism suspects who share the same names, have gone on for years — just as they have for thousands of members of the traveling public.

One air marshal said it has been "a major problem, where guys are denied boarding by the airline."

"In some cases, planes have departed without any coverage because the airline employees were adamant they would not fly," said the air marshal, who asked not to be named because the job requires anonymity. "I've seen guys actually being denied boarding."

A second air marshal said one agent "has been getting harassed for six years because his exact name is on the no-fly list."
Where are all the "gov doesn't work" people when you need them?

[Iscariot]

It's cool if you use Kool-aid.

[solvs]

Kool-aid stings if it goes up your nose.

[Iscariot]

Kool-aid stings if it goes up your nose.

Stings with the syrup-y tang of sweet American justice!

[solvs]

Stings with the syrup-y tang of sweet American justice!

I hear in powdery form it makes you high. Now there's a way to get some information out of someone. Though I'm guessing there'd be a lot of giggling and stuff about how awesome the universe is because we're all, like, connected or whatever. I would imagine.

[Desertrat]

skunk, I don't have to prove anything. I merely offered a couple of hypothets. If they're all that far-fetched, then I'm highly unlikely to get into the torturing business, right?

solvs, I'm fully aware of the problems involved with information gained through torture. But if time is not a major factor, everybody will break, sooner or later. The torture must be psychological as well as physical, of course. Pain, alone, is inadequate...

Separately: An article written maybe 20 or 25 years ago addressed the character and personalities of professional torturers. Central and South America; Iron Curtain countries. Quite a number of interviews of men whose job was to torture.

Turns out that they're not particularly high IQ, but not dummies. Family men. Good to their kids. They go home at night and do some equivalent of watching TV. Rather emotionless about their daily work; "It's just a job."

FWIW,

'Rat

[skunk]

skunk, I don't have to prove anything. I merely offered a couple of hypothets. If they're all that far-fetched, then I'm highly unlikely to get into the torturing business, right?You were, it seemed, using those hypothetical situations as a possible justification for the "principle" of torture. If those situations have never arisen outside the fevered imagination of Hollywood scriptwriters, then your argument for justification simply falls apart, and making such an argument in the absence of any evidence that those scenarios could ever actually exist is fundamentally dishonest.

[zioxide]

No. Torture doesn't work.

[hulugu]

skunk, I don't have to prove anything. I merely offered a couple of hypothets. If they're all that far-fetched, then I'm highly unlikely to get into the torturing business, right?

solvs, I'm fully aware of the problems involved with information gained through torture. But if time is not a major factor, everybody will break, sooner or later. The torture must be psychological as well as physical, of course. Pain, alone, is inadequate...

Separately: An article written maybe 20 or 25 years ago addressed the character and personalities of professional torturers. Central and South America; Iron Curtain countries. Quite a number of interviews of men whose job was to torture.

Turns out that they're not particularly high IQ, but not dummies. Family men. Good to their kids. They go home at night and do some equivalent of watching TV. Rather emotionless about their daily work; "It's just a job."

FWIW,

'Rat

I'd love to read this article. Although, I would wonder if the required ability of a torturer is to emotionally shut-down, treating their acts as a "just a job" is probably the only way to stay sane. This doesn't mean that their acts aren't still corrosive to themselves or their society.

[skunk]

I'd love to read this article. Although, I would wonder if the required ability of a torturer is to emotionally shut-down, treating their acts as a "just a job" is probably the only way to stay sane. This doesn't mean that their acts aren't still corrosive to themselves or their society.The ability to ignore the cruelty they are inflicting is exactly the "dehumanising" which is the problem here. The more people can be persuaded that torture is simply part of the normal, workaday fabric of life in a civilised society, the more hollow are any pretensions to progress.

[skunk]

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSL0289895420080502"Torture is terrorism", ex-Guantanamo man tells U.S.
Fri May 2, 2008 2:01pm EDT
By Opheera McDoom

KHARTOUM (Reuters) - Al Jazeera journalist Sami al-Haj returned home to Sudan on Friday after more than six years in the U.S.-run Guantanamo Bay prison, urging Washington to respect human rights and branding torture as terrorism.

Haj said he and the other Guantanamo detainees had been subjected to all kinds of torture, but the worst had been when his jailers insulted Islam or desecrated the Koran in front of prisoners.

"Security and human rights are inseparable issues -- you cannot have one without the other," he told Reuters in an interview.

"Human rights are not only for times of peace -- you need to hold onto them always even during difficult times and times of war," he added.

"My last message to the U.S. administration is that torture will not stop terrorism -- torture is terrorism."

Haj looked frail but visibly stronger than 12 hours earlier, when he arrived in chains aboard a U.S. military plane from the U.S. prison in Cuba, where he spent the last 16 months on hunger strike in protest at his illegal detention.

Lying on his hospital bed he barely had enough strength to greet President Omar Hassan al-Bashir and the dozens of ministers and well-wishers ecstatic at his return.

His brother Asim collapsed with exhaustion on his arrival after the years of campaigning for his release finally drew to an end.

Al-Haj met his eight-year-old son Mohamed for the first time since his son was a year old in an emotional reunion. The cameraman was arrested near the Afghan border in 2001 and later taken to the highly criticized U.S. military base in Cuba.

"His mother was constantly sending me pictures of him ... but even if I had not seen the picture I would have known him among thousands of children by my strong sense of fatherhood," he said.

Haj will spend the next few days undergoing tests in the hospital after his hunger strike and months of force feeding twice a day left him weak and with many ailments.

"God willing our happiness and celebrations will be complete once our brothers left in Guantanamo prison are released," he said. Four Sudanese prisoners remain in Guantanamo.Beacon of Liberty my arse.

[solvs]

Iraqi alleges Abu Ghraib torture, sues US contractors (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080506/ap_on_re_us/abu_ghraib_lawsuit)

An Iraqi man sued two U.S. military contractors, claiming he was repeatedly tortured while being held at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison for more than 10 months.

Emad al-Janabi's federal lawsuit, filed Monday in Los Angeles, claims that employees of CACI International Inc. and L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. punched him, slammed him into walls, hung him from a bed frame and kept him naked and handcuffed in his cell beginning in September 2003.
Look for more of this to come.

[Unspeaked]

Iraqi alleges Abu Ghraib torture, sues US contractors (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080506/ap_on_re_us/abu_ghraib_lawsuit)


Look for more of this to come.



So is torture going to turn into the new "Catholic priest"...?

[Dont Hurt Me]

We don't need to become the enemy to defeat the enemy. Its just to bad we have so many Morons working in Washington these days. Torture is wrong. It doesn't work. Its not Moral. Its unethical, its not Constitutional and its 100% anti Christian ! Righties dont get it.:eek:

[glocke12]

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSL0289895420080502Beacon of Liberty my arse.

"Haj said he and the other Guantanamo detainees had been subjected to all kinds of torture, but the worst had been when his jailers insulted Islam or desecrated the Koran in front of prisoners."

hmmm....so if I take a cr@p on the koran, can I be accused of torture ?

[obeygiant]

hmmm....so if I take a cr@p on the koran, can I be accused of torture ?

yes, you can.

[glocke12]

/

[DZ/015]

If it truly is torture, then it is wrong. I have never undergone the procedure, so I cannot honestly say if it is torture or not. But something inside me says that I will not like it. Much.

[skunk]

"Haj said he and the other Guantanamo detainees had been subjected to all kinds of torture, but the worst had been when his jailers insulted Islam or desecrated the Koran in front of prisoners."

hmmm....so if I take a cr@p on the koran, can I be accused of torture ?Probably not, but a devout Muslim might well regard witnessing the desecration of the Koran as a worse and more painful experience than any physical torture which he or she may have been subjected to.

[atszyman]

If terrorists have pertinent info about an imminent attack on the US, isn't it our duty to do anything and everything to get that info to stop the attack?

But how do you know that there is a bomb and that the person you have in custody has the information you want and isn't lying when they tell you what you want to hear? If you know this information you can obviously read minds and torture becomes irrelevant. If you don't know this you're either torturing the wrong guy to get information they don't have. Or you're just going to be sent on wild goose chases until the bomb goes off.

Once you have the person in custody the only need to delay you until the bomb goes off. They'll already most likely be locked up for life if not given the death penalty, why not let the bomb go off?

I still think, under the right circumstances, it's acceptable.

Unfortunately the right circumstances will never exist in the real world, and even if they did, the only way to know about it is being able to read minds which makes torturing a moot point.

Also Skunk is probably right, I doubt the "bomb ticking" scenario has actually happened.

Won't happen, and even if it does the likelihood of them giving up the information even if tortured is next to none. Most likely there won't be any ticking bomb. If the bomb exists the bomber is most likely going to trigger it immediately and blow themselves up along with everyone else rather than hide it and try to escape. Even if they hid it and got caught, the above still stands, they only need to delay us long enough for the bomb to go of, which is most likely less than a single day.

Mistreating detainees will never yield useful information, and only serves as a recruiting point for more terrorists.

[imac/cheese]

I have been thinking about this, and personally, I do not like the anti-torture argument that torture is never effective or that the scenario where torture might be "needed" would never happen. The "terrorist who knows the location of a ticking bomb" scenario is quite ridiculous but there are other situations that might better lend themselves to torture. If two kidnappers had someone's child and one was caught, you can imagine that most people would be willing to torture that guy to find out where the child was being taken. And the odds are that the guy would rat out his fellow kidnapper to avoid being hurt himself. Terrorists, religious fighters, and military members often have a higher dedication to their cause that will help them resist torture, but many people are more than willing to sell their soul to avoid pain and I imagine that mercenaries or even the average criminal would fall into that category.

To me the best argument that torture is wrong is not that it is ineffective, but that is immoral, unethical, and abhorent. The best argument when dealing with religious conservatives is that it is completely against the teachings of Jesus.

[Much Ado]

To me the best argument that torture is wrong is not that it is ineffective, but that is immoral, unethical, and abhorent. The best argument when dealing with religious conservatives is that it is completely against the teachings of Jesus.

No, the best argument is that it is ineffective, as history backs this up. There will always be people who think that it is morally acceptable, but few can claim it is effective, and none with any justification.

[atszyman]

I have been thinking about this, and personally, I do not like the anti-torture argument that torture is never effective or that the scenario where torture might be "needed" would never happen. The "terrorist who knows the location of a ticking bomb" scenario is quite ridiculous but there are other situations that might better lend themselves to torture. If two kidnappers had someone's child and one was caught, you can imagine that most people would be willing to torture that guy to find out where the child was being taken. And the odds are that the guy would rat out his fellow kidnapper to avoid being hurt himself. Terrorists, religious fighters, and military members often have a higher dedication to their cause that will help them resist torture, but many people are more than willing to sell their soul to avoid pain and I imagine that mercenaries or even the average criminal would fall into that category.

To me the best argument that torture is wrong is not that it is ineffective, but that is immoral, unethical, and abhorent. The best argument when dealing with religious conservatives is that it is completely against the teachings of Jesus.

The kidnapper scenario is just as likely to yield results by offering incentives, reduced sentencing with his/her cooperation than torture is, and it's less likely to get thrown out of court due to brutality/coercion issues.

Well the immorality of torture has always been there, but that hasn't seemed to stop anyone from doing it, and the "ticking time bomb" scenario is their favorite example of when it should be used, in order to scare us into accepting it as a necessary evil. It needs to be shown as ineffective as well as immoral in order for it to finally sink in for everyone that it should simply never be done.

[imac/cheese]

No, the best argument is that it is ineffective, as history backs this up. There will always be people who think that it is morally acceptable, but few can claim it is effective, and none with any justification.

I have heard that torture is ineffective on this thread a lot and you are stating that history backs that fact up, but I have never seen anything that actually proves it is ineffective. I know there are tons of stories out there where a prisoner gave the enemy all sorts of false info and had the enemy chasing wild geese all over the place, but I have also have a feeling that there are numerous people that have never mentioned how much information they gave up while being tortured. Even the US has amended its armed forces code of conduct to include the phrase "to the utmost of my ability" in regard to answering questions.

Do you guys have any studies that prove torture doesn't work? I would love to read them if you do. I couldn't really find anything other than opinions. I personally don't know if it is effective or not, but lots of people, countries police forces, etc use it and have continued to use it for centuries.

I just don't think most people will believe that torture is ineffective when you tell them that, so I think it ends up being a bad argument unless you have some evidence to show how ineffective it really is.

[brn2ski00]

Bottom line is that there is so much **** that we don't even know about. I am sure Waterboarding is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Government activity.

[skunk]

I have heard that torture is ineffective on this thread a lot and you are stating that history backs that fact up, but I have never seen anything that actually proves it is ineffective.Not difficult to find, really. The Torture Myth
By Anne Applebaum
Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Just for a moment, let's pretend that there is no moral, legal or constitutional problem with torture. Let's also imagine a clear-cut case: a terrorist who knows where bombs are about to explode in Iraq. To stop him, it seems that a wide range of Americans would be prepared to endorse "cruel and unusual" methods. In advance of confirmation hearings for Attorney General-designate Alberto Gonzales last week, the Wall Street Journal argued that such scenarios must be debated, since "what's at stake in this controversy is nothing less than the ability of U.S. forces to interrogate enemies who want to murder innocent civilians." Alan Dershowitz, the liberal legal scholar, has argued in the past that interrogators in such a case should get a "torture warrant" from a judge. Both of these arguments rest on an assumption: that torture -- defined as physical pressure during interrogation -- can be used to extract useful information.

But does torture work? The question has been asked many times since Sept. 11, 2001. I'm repeating it, however, because the Gonzales hearings inspired more articles about our lax methods ("Too Nice for Our Own Good" was one headline), because similar comments may follow this week's trial of Spec. Charles Graner, the alleged Abu Ghraib ringleader, and because I still cannot find a positive answer. I've heard it said that the Syrians and the Egyptians "really know how to get these things done." I've heard the Israelis mentioned, without proof. I've heard Algeria mentioned, too, but Darius Rejali, an academic who recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway. "Liberals," argued an article in the liberal online magazine Slate a few months ago, "have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, the argument that torture is ineffective." But it's also true that "realists," whether liberal or conservative, have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, fictitious accounts of effective torture carried out by someone else.

By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be "making gratuitous enemies" and that prisoner abuse "is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry." Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly.

An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture.

Given the overwhelmingly negative evidence, the really interesting question is not whether torture works but why so many people in our society want to believe that it works. At the moment, there is a myth in circulation, a fable that goes something like this: Radical terrorists will take advantage of our fussy legality, so we may have to suspend it to beat them. Radical terrorists mock our namby-pamby prisons, so we must make them tougher. Radical terrorists are nasty, so to defeat them we have to be nastier.

Perhaps it's reassuring to tell ourselves tales about the new forms of "toughness" we need, or to talk about the special rules we will create to defeat this special enemy. Unfortunately, that toughness is self-deceptive and self-destructive. Ultimately it will be self-defeating as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html
Robert Fisk: Torture does not work, as history shows
The Americans are just apeing their predecessors in the Inquisition

Saturday, 2 February 2008

"Torture works," an American special forces major – now, needless to say, a colonel – boasted to a colleague of mine a couple of years ago. It seems that the CIA and its hired thugs in Afghanistan and Iraq still believe this. There is no evidence that rendition and beatings and waterboarding and the insertion of metal pipes into men's anuses – and, of course, the occasional torturing to death of detainees – has ended. Why else would the CIA admit in January that it had destroyed videotapes of prisoners being almost drowned – the "waterboarding" technique – before they could be seen by US investigators?

Yet only a few days ago, I came across a medieval print in which a prisoner has been strapped to a wooden chair, a leather hosepipe pushed down his throat and a primitive pump fitted at the top of the hose where an ill-clad torturer is hard at work squirting water down the hose. The prisoner's eyes bulge with terror as he feels himself drowning, all the while watched by Spanish inquisitors who betray not the slightest feelings of sympathy with the prisoner. Who said "waterboarding" was new? The Americans are just apeing their predecessors in the inquisition.

Anther medieval print I found in a Canadian newspaper in November shows a prisoner under interrogation in what I suspect is medieval Germany. In this case, he has been strapped backwards to the outer edge of a wheel. Two hooded men are administering his agony. One is using a bellows to encourage a fire burning at the bottom of the wheel while the other is turning the wheel forwards so that the prisoner's feet are moving into the flames. The eyes of this poor man – naked save for a cloth over his lower torso – are tight shut in pain. Two priests stand beside him, one cowled, the other wearing a robe over his surplice, a paper and pen in hand to take down the prisoner's words.

Anthony Grafton, who has been working on a book about magic in Renaissance Europe, says that in the 16th and 17th centuries, torture was systematically used against anyone suspected of witchcraft, his or her statements taken down by sworn notaries – the equivalent, I suppose, of the CIA's interrogation officers – and witnessed by officials who made no pretence that this was anything other than torture; no talk of "enhanced interrogation" from the lads who turned the wheel to the fire.

As Grafton recounts, "The pioneering medievalist Henry Charles Lea ... wrote at length about the ways in which inquisitors had used torture to make prisoners confess heretical views and actions. An enlightened man writing in what he saw as an enlightened age, he looked back in horror at these barbarous practices and condemned them with a clarity that anyone reading public statements must now envy."

There were professionals in the Middle Ages who were trained to use pain as a method of enquiry as well as an ultimate punishment before death. Men who were to be "hanged, drawn and quartered" in medieval London, for example, would be shown the "instruments" before their final suffering began with the withdrawal of their intestines in front of vast crowds of onlookers. Most of those tortured for information in medieval times were anyway executed after they had provided the necessary information to their interrogators. These inquisitions – with details of the torture that accompanied them – were published and disseminated widely so that the public should understand the threat that the prisoners had represented and the power of those who inflicted such pain upon them. No destroying of videotapes here. Illustrated pamphlets and songs, according to Grafton, were added to the repertory of publicity.

Ronnie Po-chia Hsia and Italian scholars Diego Quaglioni and Anna Esposito have studied the 15th-century Trent inquisition whose victims were usually Jews. In 1475, three Jewish households were accused of murdering a Christian boy called Simon to carry out the supposed Passover "ritual" of using his blood to make "matzo" bread. This "blood libel" – it was, of course, a total falsity – is still, alas, believed in many parts of the Middle East although it is frightening to discover that the idea was well established in 15th century Europe.

As usual, the podestà – a city official – was the interrogator, who regarded external evidence as providing mere clues of guilt. Europe was then still governed by Roman law which required confessions in order to convict. As Grafton describes horrifyingly, once the prisoner's answers no longer satisfied the podestà, the torturer tied the man's or woman's arms behind their back and the prisoner would then be lifted by a pulley, agonisingly, towards the ceiling. "Then, on orders of the podestà, the torturer would make the accused 'jump' or 'dance' – pulling him or her up, then releasing the rope, dislocating limbs and inflicting stunning pain."

When a member of one of the Trent Jewish families, Samuel, asked the podestà where he had heard that Jews needed Christian blood, the interrogator replied – and all this while, it should be remembered, Samuel was dangling in the air on the pulley – that he had heard it from other Jews. Samuel said that he was being tortured unjustly. "The truth, the truth!" the podestà shouted, and Samuel was made to "jump" up to eight feet, telling his interrogator: "God the Helper and truth help me." After 40 minutes, he was returned to prison.

Once broken, the Jewish prisoners, of course, confessed. After another torture session, Samuel named a fellow Jew. Further sessions of torture finally broke him and he invented the Jewish ritual murder plot and named others guilty of this non-existent crime. Two tortured women managed to exonerate children but eventually, in Grafton's words, "they implicated loved ones, friends and members of other Jewish communities". Thus did torture force innocent civilians to confess to fantastical crimes. Oxford historian Lyndal Roper found that the tortured eventually accepted the view that they were guilty.

Grafton's conclusion is unanswerable. Torture does not obtain truth. It will make most ordinary people say anything the torturer wants. Why, who knows if the men under the CIA's "waterboarding" did not confess that they could fly to meet the devil. And who knows if the CIA did not end up believing him.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fisk/robert-fisk-torture-does-not-work-as-history-shows-777213.html

[Much Ado]

Do you guys have any studies that prove torture doesn't work? I would love to read them if you do.

It works the other way around. There are no documented examples of how torture has helped save an American life.

EDIT: Wonderful links above.

[Badandy]

If torture has never worked, why has it been practiced for centuries? Not saying it works all the time, but it seems as if it had no benefit at all the practice would have stopped long ago...

[.Andy]

If torture has never worked, why has it been practiced for centuries? Not saying it works all the time, but it seems as if it had no benefit at all the practice would have stopped long ago...
It benefits a sense of machismo, revenge, proactivity, and domination in the torturers. The people whom support it this time are no different.


edit: And I'm sure no one needs to point out that just because something has been practiced for a long time that it works. It's a logical fallacy and a rather juvenile one at that.

[skunk]

If torture has never worked, why has it been practiced for centuries?Because some people never tire of the prospect of being able to "break" somebody. It's always about "breaking" those who stand up against you, refuse to confess, refuse to worship your god or your civilisation, your laws or your political system. It's about proving that, at some point or other, "everyone will yield". Of course, what it's really about is the fear and the insecurity of the torturer, which is why there will always be a willing queue for the job.

[Badandy]

And I'm sure no one needs to point out that just because something has been practiced for a long time that it works. It's a logical fallacy and a rather juvenile one at that.

Excuse me for being so juvenile. Let me go back to my crib and suck on my pacifier.

[obeygiant]

Excuse me for being so juvenile. Let me go back to my crib and suck on my pacifier.

lol. Talking has been used for a long time, its a logical fallacy that it actually works. Same goes for procreation, making wine, and growing crops. :D

[Iscariot]

lol. Talking has been used for a long time, its a logical fallacy that it actually works. Same goes for procreation, making wine, and growing crops. :D

Actually, it is a logical fallacy, known as appeal to tradition. Similarly, if you claimed communication, procreation, agriculture, etc. worked simply because they've been around for awhile, that too would be a fallacy. However, all of those examples have loads of other evidence to back up that they're useful and actually work.

As Wade Wilson wisely said, "been thinking of starting up a super hero porn site...nothin too rude, i mean tasteful nakedshots of SUE RICHARDS...when's she VISIBLE, 'cos otherwise, DUH..."

[solvs]

hmmm....so if I take a cr@p on the koran, can I be accused of torture ?
yes, you can.
You can, but it isn't what we're talking about. While I'm sure it was terrible for them, and a black mark on us, doesn't change that they were actually tortured. You can't tell me that with everything posted above, you still don't have a problem with that.

If torture has never worked, why has it been practiced for centuries? Not saying it works all the time, but it seems as if it had no benefit at all the practice would have stopped long ago...
Human sacrifices are still practiced. Lots of things are still used despite not working. As said, if nothing else than as feel good policy to make it seem as if it's working. It doesn't work. Anyone who knows anything about this says so. Points out why. We've done as much here. It just doesn't. Especially when you aren't actually guilty, as some of these people weren't. Sometimes it can actually even make things worse for us:

Ex-Guantanamo Detainee Joined Iraq Suicide Attack (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050703456.html?nav=rss_world/mideast/iraq)

[obeygiant]

Actually, it is a logical fallacy, known as appeal to tradition. Similarly, if you claimed communication, procreation, agriculture, etc. worked simply because they've been around for awhile, that too would be a fallacy. However, all of those examples have loads of other evidence to back up that they're useful and actually work.

A first hand account from John McCain (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/100012.shtml) says that torture has actually worked. That doesn't mean the US should practice it, but to say it never works is silly. The fact that the practice is still around means it works at least 51% of the time. Just because you can't search the internet and find "loads" evidence that torture has worked doesn't mean it never has.

You can, but it isn't what we're talking about. While I'm sure it was terrible for them, and a black mark on us, doesn't change that they were actually tortured. You can't tell me that with everything posted above, you still don't have a problem with that.


Farting on the koran is not considered torture because you're not actually touching it. :)

[PlaceofDis]

A first hand account from John McCain (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/100012.shtml) says that torture has actually worked. That doesn't mean the US should practice it, but to say it never works is silly. The fact that the practice is still around means it works at least 51% of the time. Just because you can't search the internet and find "loads" evidence that torture has worked doesn't mean it never has.



Farting on the koran is not considered torture because you're not actually touching it. :)

and what useful information did they get from McCain. none. after years.
just goes to show that it is indeed pointless and of no use.

[atszyman]

A first hand account from John McCain (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/100012.shtml) says that torture has actually worked. That doesn't mean the US should practice it, but to say it never works is silly. The fact that the practice is still around means it works at least 51% of the time. Just because you can't search the internet and find "loads" evidence that torture has worked doesn't mean it never has.

Monarchies and dictatorships have been around a long time as well does that mean they work? It may work every once in a great while but how do you know you're getting good information and they're not just admitting whatever you want to hear to make the pain stop?

Just because it's around does not mean it has to work more than half of the time, that only applies to games in Vegas.

[skunk]

A first hand account from John McCain (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/100012.shtml) says that torture has actually worked.If you read the linked article, you will see that McCain gave no useful information, so I do not see how either you or he could claim that torture "worked".

Farting on the koran is not considered torture because you're not actually touching it. :)It is not torture to desecrate a "holy book", but it certainly comes under "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" which is expressly forbidden by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which of course the US is a signatory.

[Evangelion]

torture is never OK. And all those politicians who claim that waterboarding is not torture should be immediately waterboarded on live television. If it's not torture, then surely they wouldn't mind trying it out themselves? And if it isn't torture, then surely it's OK to show it on daytime-television?

[imac/cheese]

Not difficult to find, really.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fisk/robert-fisk-torture-does-not-work-as-history-shows-777213.html

Those articles are not any kind of study to determine if torture actually works. The authors are trying to prove a point that torture doesn't work. I understand that people will often confess anything to stop pain and if capable many would quickly make up a story as well, but that doesn't mena that the process is completely ineffective. If anyone has actually seen a study of some sort, I would love to see it.

When I was teaching ROTC cadets a few years ago, my class watched a video on military ethics where a panel of military experts were debating the the topic. IIRC the panel had several people that were witnesses to torture being performed effectively to save American lives in Vietnam. The point of the video lesson was to teach the position of the Air Force on torture, which is that it is not tolerated and against the uniform code of military justice based on the Geneva Convention. It was also used to teach the future officers that they will possibly encounter people in their units that are all for torturing captives to find out information and that it is not something the air force allows.

My point is, that torture is horrible and completely deplorable and should never be used, but that doesn't mean that it would never provide any results if it was used.

[Iscariot]

A first hand account from John McCain (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/100012.shtml) says that torture has actually worked. That doesn't mean the US should practice it, but to say it never works is silly. The fact that the practice is still around means it works at least 51% of the time. Just because you can't search the internet and find "loads" evidence that torture has worked doesn't mean it never has.

I think you misread my post a fair bit.

At any rate, saying it works at least 51% of the time isn't logically sound. People still perform ritual sacrifices for God(s), but as far as I can see he's never written a letter of thanks. Anything that has an illogical motivation (torture, murder, rape, sacrifice etc.) doesn't need logical justification to be enacted.

[obeygiant]

I think you misread my post a fair bit.


Whose to say I even read your post. ;) :D

[Virgil-TB2]

I agree with you completely, but this part here is (unintentionally) hilarious:


Torture should be illegal, ...
:D I mean, of course it already is illegal, according to "world government" bodies and agreements, all the modern "western" nations and specifically in the USA.

George Bush had to basically write a new law that overturned the constitution to proceed with the torture plan in the first place.

[skunk]

Those articles are not any kind of study to determine if torture actually works.Look, if you wish to present some sort of excuse for supporting a practice which is self-evidently morally repugnant, in breach of your international obligations, and arguably useless to boot, as evidenced by the reports of several practitioners and experts in interrogation mentioned above, it is incumbent on you to provide enough solid evidence of its effectiveness in order to make any case at all, otherwise your reluctance to adopt a position in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions and common humanity begins to look like nothing but gratuitous sadism.

[imac/cheese]

Look, if you wish to present some sort of excuse for supporting a practice which is self-evidently morally repugnant, in breach of your international obligations, and arguably useless to boot, as evidenced by the reports of several practitioners and experts in interrogation mentioned above, it is incumbent on you to provide enough solid evidence of its effectiveness in order to make any case at all, otherwise your reluctance to adopt a position in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions and common humanity begins to look like nothing but gratuitous sadism.

I have never presented any excuse for torture in any way what so ever. As I have stated several times in this thread, torture is horrible, deplorable, unethical, and disgusting. I simply stated that I do not think the argument that torture is ineffective is a very good argument. Other people have been stating throughout this thread that torture doesn't work and I have asked for some evidence that it doesn't work. These people are making the argument, I have simply asked for evidence. Why is it incumbent on me to prove them wrong when they have not provided any proof other than to say "history backs this up"?

I think torture is completely and totally wrong. It is an act that shows complete disrespect for human life and dignity. I do not think our country should be involved in any act that even remotely resembles torture. The position I have adopted is in line with both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions. I do not see how it is sadist to think that something horrible like torture might actually produce some kind of results. The results that torture produces are never worth the price that must be paid to achieve those results.

[skunk]

The results that torture produces are never worth the price that must be paid to achieve those results.Do you have any solid studies which support this position?

[imac/cheese]

Do you have any solid studies which support this position?

Nope. That is purely my own personal opinion. :)

What something is worth is always based on personal opinion and perspective and should not be confused with someone trying to state a fact.

[solvs]

Whose to say I even read your post. ;) :D

Nor did you read your own link apparently:

The information was of no real use to the Vietnamese

Or my post, where I was stating that while some of those things you mentioned are indeed perceived as terrible by those tortured, I was speaking of the actual torture we used against them, which is not only wrong but doesn't work.

The point of all of the links we've shown saying torture doesn't work is from those who know better, who've yet to provide anything showing it has. Now, lack of proof doesn't make the opposite true, but in this case, it's not only deplorable, but it hasn't provided us with anything we claim it's used for. Hasn't stopped any ticking time bombs, hasn't prevented anything, hasn't even gotten info out of people after the fact. Nothing provided shows we got anything from them we couldn't have otherwise either. I guess we could have, but are keeping it secret, but considering we all know we're torturing and have tortured, what's to keep secret? If it's nothing we can use in court, it would be worthless to us anyway to prosecute. And considering this is an administration who talks openly of every "success" against terror, even the ones that weren't actually, and even the ones that actually made things worse, such as when we screwed our English allies over by speaking publicly about something before they were ready to release it or gave out info that screwed over a private company and their sources in the 'stans, I don't see them hiding if it did. They actually did try to say it worked with a few people we did get info from, but none of it turned out to be true. Kinda the point. You can't trust the info you get, because it could be being said simply to stop the torture. It's used because it can be. Doesn't mean it will work, but why should we have to prove that it doesn't, because the point is that no one can prove that it does, let alone anymore than anything else could, nor how we can tell what's true and what isn't.

The sad truth is that though it should be enough to say that it's terrible and shouldn't be done simply because of how terrible it is, how much it's against everything we're supposed to stand for, it just isn't enough, so we also have to point out it doesn't work either, at least in a provable way that no other way could accomplish.

[sellitman]

bush & Dick should be tried for War Crimes. :mad:

[spooky mulder]

absolutely, whatever it takes to get the job done.

[Iscariot]

I simply stated that I do not think the argument that torture is ineffective is a very good argument.

I believe the reason the effectiveness is questioned so heavily is because those in favour of torture attempt to justify it not on ethical grounds, but rather that sometimes it is a necessary evil precisely because it is "effective" in the "right circumstances". Per examples:

Any form of torture is okay. If it means protecting the United States and its ppl from harm then damn right it's okay.
absolutely, whatever it takes to get the job done.
2x

It likely wouldn't be grounds for discussion if not for that. I personally agree that it's not the most effective argument, and it shouldn't be a point that is necessary to defend. As you've stated, torture is "horrible, deplorable, unethical, and disgusting" and "an act that shows complete disrespect for human life and dignity", which should be more than enough reason to render it unthinkable.

[Aranince]

absolutely, whatever it takes to get the job done.

2x

[spooky mulder]

2x

[QUOTE=Iscariot;5423297]I believe the reason the effectiveness is questioned so heavily is because those in favour of torture attempt to justify it not on ethical grounds, but rather that sometimes it is a necessary evil precisely because it is "effective"

I believe that it is a necessary "evil." How else are we supposed to get information from terrorist that want nothing but to see us die? Do we forget all the videos that we see on t.v and on the internet of them saying, and sometimes actually going through with decapitations? I am not arguing the point that we should do it because they do, but there is no other way to get crucial, LIFE SAVING information from those types of people. Why does it matter to me, you, or anyone that we dump some water on their faces to find out when the next attack on America, or any other nation will occur? Would they not take our kindness for weakness? Would they pause at the chance to attack again? I believe that almost everyone would take drastic measures to save their children. Why is it so bad that our government is taking drastic measures to save all of us, including our children?

Rant is over. :D

[skunk]

2xIf this is what you think, then you should direct your best efforts to openly repudiating all those international agreements by which your country sought to persuade others that torture, cruel and unusual punishment, inhuman and degrading treatment should all be banned under any circumstances.

[skunk]

I believe that it is a necessary "evil." How else are we supposed to get information from terrorist that want nothing but to see us die? Do we forget all the videos that we see on t.v and on the internet of them saying, and sometimes actually going through with decapitations? I am not arguing the point that we should do it because they do, but there is no other way to get crucial, LIFE SAVING information from those types of people. Why does it matter to me, you, or anyone that we dump some water on their faces to find out when the next attack on America, or any other nation will occur? Would they not take our kindness for weakness? Would they pause at the chance to attack again? I believe that almost everyone would take drastic measures to save their children. Why is it so bad that our government is taking drastic measures to save all of us, including our children?You have yet to produce any evidence at all that such methods, which you use at the cost of any pretensions to civilisation, ethical standards, moral high ground or respect for common humanity, actually produce any results. As somebody two thousand years ago might have said: "What profiteth a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?" If the cost of winning is so high, might it not be better to lose?

[Iscariot]

I believe that it is a necessary "evil." How else are we supposed to get information from terrorist that want nothing but to see us die? Do we forget all the videos that we see on t.v and on the internet of them saying, and sometimes actually going through with decapitations? I am not arguing the point that we should do it because they do, but there is no other way to get crucial, LIFE SAVING information from those types of people. Why does it matter to me, you, or anyone that we dump some water on their faces to find out when the next attack on America, or any other nation will occur? Would they not take our kindness for weakness? Would they pause at the chance to attack again? I believe that almost everyone would take drastic measures to save their children. Why is it so bad that our government is taking drastic measures to save all of us, including our children?

Rant is over. :D

Because in your black-and-white Hollywood world, the bad guys are so clearly defined, right? Obviously everyone ever picked up and accused of terrorism is a dyed-in-the-wool baby-killing reporting-decapitating evil genius capable of taking over the most powerful nation on Earth if we just gave them a chance, right?

Anything's game as long as John McClane and Jack Bauer get the bad guys.

There's never been anyone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Abou_El-Maati) innocent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar) that's ever been tortured (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murat_Kurnaz), right?

"Not quite as bad as [them]" isn't much of a moral aspiration, is it?

[spooky mulder]

You have yet to produce any evidence at all that such methods, which you use at the cost of any pretensions to civilisation, ethical standards, moral high ground or respect for common humanity, actually produce any results. As somebody two thousand years ago might have said: "What profiteth a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?" If the cost of winning is so high, might it not be better to lose?

And you have not provided any evidence that they don't produce results, and don't save lives. The information is simply not available to the people at this moment. It is not as if we are running around breaking knee caps and cutting off thumbs to get information These pseudo drownings are pale in comparison to other methods that are used and practiced by the groups that we target when using this form of "torture" for obtaining information. I am tired of us having to hide behind this moral chastity belt, for which we can never escape, only to save face in they eyes of the over-sensitive public. A public that wants everything to be alright without actually doing some dirty work. The terrorists have no respect for our basic right to live, why should i or anyone care about their humanity, when they have none, and when they wouldn't think twice about doing the same to me or you?

[spooky mulder]

Because in your black-and-white Hollywood world, the bad guys are so clearly defined, right? Obviously everyone ever picked up and accused of terrorism is a dyed-in-the-wool baby-killing reporting-decapitating evil genius capable of taking over the most powerful nation on Earth if we just gave them a chance, right?

Anything's game as long as John McClane and Jack Bauer get the bad guys.

There's never been anyone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Abou_El-Maati) innocent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar) that's ever been tortured (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murat_Kurnaz), right?

"Not quite as bad as [them]" isn't much of a moral aspiration, is it?

some people are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that is unfortunate. But it happens all the time. How many people have been in prison for 20 + years, falsely convicted? Accidents do happen. But i believe that the bennies outweigh the costs.

And me personally, I don't watch that ****** 24 t.v show. And i certainly don't live in a black and white hollywood world. I want to feel like my government is doing something to protect me and my family whatever it takes. End of point.

[Iscariot]

some people are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that is unfortunate. But it happens all the time. How many people have been in prison for 20 + years, falsely convicted? Accidents do happen. But i believe that the bennies outweigh the costs.

And what benefits are those? I once again ask you to provide a relevant and recent example of torture saving lives. If you can't come up with some very good example as justification to betray basic human rights, then perhaps you should re-examine your position.

And me personally, I don't watch that ****** 24 t.v show. And i certainly don't live in a black and white hollywood world. I want to feel like my government is doing something to protect me and my family what ever it takes. End of point.

If you believe torture and human rights abuses are a "necessary evil" without being able to provide relevant reasons and examples besides an appeal to emotion, then I'm afraid you are living in a fantasy world. If you like, I'll let you choose the title. I suggest something that incorporates a John Wayne quote.

[paddy]

These pseudo drownings are pale in comparison to other methods that are used and practiced by the groups that we target when using this form of "torture" for obtaining information.... The terrorists have no respect for our basic right to live, why should i or anyone care about their humanity, when they have none, and when they wouldn't think twice about doing the same to me or you?

Your country signed international agreements against the use of torture, therefore its automatically wrong on those ground alone.

Why should anyone care about their humanity? A terrorist, despite what you seem to think, isn't born a terrorist. They are made one. Maybe you could look at what your country has done in the Middle-East, and it's total lack of respect for life, rather than blaming these monsters. They deserve blame, yes, but not all of it.

Anyway, if torture worked the SAS would have put a stop to the Troubles in N. Ireland in 1971, but did they? :rolleyes:

[spooky mulder]

i believe the title of this thread was... is water boarding ever o.k ? A question which is meant to bring about others opinions. I have no need or want to further my position, nor do i feel like doing any research, no matter how short to justify my opinion on this matter to anyone. I have stated my opinion and you have stated yours. I am entitled to my opinion and I really don't care if anyone disagrees with it.

And no i am not living in a fantasy world, i can clearly feel my feet on the ground. Lots of people believe in things that they have no ability to support with concrete examples and believe blindly on emotions. I believe that water boarding is a useful tool , the same as some believe that there is a god. "Purely on emotion." Am i not entitled to that?

“If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow.” ~ John Wayne

[Iscariot]

Why should anyone care about their humanity? A terrorist, despite what you seem to think, isn't born a terrorist. They are made one. Maybe you could look at what your country has done in the Middle-East, and it's total lack of respect for life, rather than blaming these monsters. They deserve blame, yes, but not all of it.

Even if they were born sociopaths, indoctrinated from day 1, and incapable of any kind of empathy, they still shouldn't be tortured. Breaking international treaties and engaging in human rights abuses would still be as wrong and indefensible.

[Iscariot]

i believe the title of this thread was... is water boarding ever o.k ? A question which is meant to bring about others opinions. I have no need or want to further my position, nor do i feel like doing any research, no matter how short to justify my opinion on this matter to anyone. I have stated my opinion and you have stated yours. I am entitled to my opinion and I really don't care if anyone disagrees with it.


II. Be willing to engage in fact-based debate

Provide links or other form of citation to corroborate claims; uncited claims will be considered opinion/hearsay

'K I'll take this as tacit admission that you are factually incorrect.

[spooky mulder]

'K I'll take this as tacit admission that you are factually incorrect.

yea i am stating my OPINION, nothing more. As you are that you disagree is an opinion. You have not provided any proof that it doesn't work. You know why, because the media only reports the bad, they never even hear about situations where it did work, for it is probably classified, and none of us will ever hear of these instances. If I am factually incorrect in saying it does work, you are guilty of being factually incorrect saying that it doesn't work. Because both are a matter of opinion.

“If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow.”~ john wayne

[Iscariot]

yea i am stating my OPINION, nothing more. As you are that you disagree is an opinion.

I am stating an informed, factually-backed opinion. I have asked you to do the same. If you do not, then what you say is heresay.

You have not provided any proof that it doesn't work.

The burden of proof is not on me to provide any evidence, as I'm not making the claim that it does work. However, if you read my post (#93), you'll see I provided several examples of torture producing false information. Which, of course, would mean that in those instances, torture did not work. There are innumerable examples of torture providing false-confessions and unreliable intelligence, which waste valuable time and resources.

[spooky mulder]

[QUOTE=Iscariot;5423473]I am stating an informed, factually-backed opinion. I have asked you to do the same. If you do not, then what you say is heresay.


And how exactly is my personal opinion "hearsay"?

[Much Ado]

And how exactly is my personal opinion "hearsay"?

Indeed, how is it anything but?

[Iscariot]

I am stating an informed, factually-backed opinion. I have asked you to do the same. If you do not, then what you say is heresay.


And how exactly is my personal opinion "hearsay"?

Read my post (#99), and the PRSI guidelines. Uncorroborated opinions can rightfully be considered hearsay. It's nothing personal and I'm certainly not attacking your right to have an opinion, but if you're not going to corroborate it then I'm going to publically dismiss it. It's the same thing I'd do in a debate; which is essentially what we do in the PRSI forum.

[Back on topic] There numerous reasons that torture is unnacceptable. Torture in illegal, torture contravenes human rights, torture is unethical, torture costs us any moral high ground, torture is sometimes performed on innocent people, and torture produces innaccurate information that may incriminate other innocent people or cost time, money, and lives. There is no known evidence that can support it's use in the face of the overwhelming weight of these issues.

[solvs]

absolutely, whatever it takes to get the job done.
2x
Can't believe after all this, we still have to argue how wrong that is.

which should be more than enough reason to render it unthinkable.
Should be, but 9/11 changed everything.

I believe that it is a necessary "evil."
It isn't.

How else are we supposed to get information from terrorist that want nothing but to see us die?
You really think there's no other way to extract info? Really (http://ezinearticles.com/?Alternatives-to-Torture,-1&id=804889)? I mean, really (http://ezinearticles.com/?Alternatives-to-Torture,-Part-2&id=960938)? You must not have really read this thread then or followed the links, because there are. More reliable and effective (http://aliberalmormon.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/torture-is-neither-moral-nor-practical/), and much less unthinkable (http://www.amnestyusa.org/amnesty-magazine/amnesty-magazine/page.do?id=1105051&n1=2&n2=19). Starting with regular old police work. Cutting deals also works more often than you'd think. As does, unbelievably enough, playing good cop.

Do we forget all the videos that we see on t.v and on the internet of them saying, and sometimes actually going through with decapitations? I am not arguing the point that we should do it because they do,
We shouldn't be losing the moral high ground (any more than we already have), because then we've already lost overall (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/05/torture.html).

but there is no other way to get crucial, LIFE SAVING information from those types of people.
Again, even if that situation was true, there are other ways, better ways, that we might actually be able to rely on, which with the method you describe, we cannot.

Why does it matter to me, you, or anyone that we dump some water on their faces to find out when the next attack on America, or any other nation will occur?
Because, for one, that's not how we would find out. No reliably anyway. And for 2, it's more than just dumping water on their faces. The fact that you put it so callously proves you don't actually understand what is being done here. And it does matter, because I don't want my country doing this in my name. Especially if it proves the negative about us. If it helps them justify attacks against us. As I posted above, it is doing just that.

Would they not take our kindness for weakness?
They would take it as kindness (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/12/terror/main3360403.shtml). Especially if they are innocent, which many of those we've taken are. We've already got the guilty ones, what would be the point in playing tough against them? Not saying we treat them like royalty, but as we've posted good cop actually works. Show them we're better than that. Torture them, especially the innocent ones, lock them up without trial, we prove them right about their hatred of us, and go against everything we're supposed to stand for. We don't have to be overly nice, or let them go, or anything, there is middle ground. If anything shows weakness, it's giving in to such base acts out of fear, over our own rules and humanity.

Would they pause at the chance to attack again?
The opposite. It's what fuels them now. It will fuel them again. Read the above where I posted the innocent man taken hostage by us, held captive, tortured, then let go only to join against us in an attack. Torturing them won't make them pause. Besides, fear, especially like this, aren't the best ways to deter people. We see that time and time again. I can't honestly see how anyone can still argue it is a good deterrent.

I believe that almost everyone would take drastic measures to save their children. Why is it so bad that our government is taking drastic measures to save all of us, including our children?
Because this isn't some gut reaction to save your children. Besides, you don't go around beating people up (even the innocent ones) and doing things other illegally because you think they might be threatened. There are rules for a reason, to prevent such things. Again, this isn't that kind of situation anyway though. This is police work. You don't want the police being so reckless do you? Arresting the innocent just because, not letting you even see a lawyer or get a trial, torturing a confession out of you, or information they than have to go on a wild goose chase to follow up on that may not even be true? That they then can't even use against you because it was obtained under duress? I don't want that to happen here, why should we want it over there? Because they use the term terrorist?

And you have not provided any evidence that they don't produce results, and don't save lives.
We have actually. Again, look up. But the burden is not on us. They're saying it does work, but we have no proof it does. All the experts are saying it doesn't. We have other methods that do. If they want to do it, they should have to prove that it does. They don't, because they can't.

The information is simply not available to the people at this moment.
Again, as posted, we do actually have quite a bit of info on this. They even tried to prove it worked with a few people. It turned out not to be true. We got confessions from people for things they couldn't possibly have done. You don't think if they had a success story they'd talk about it? With all the bad press? All the former soldiers and commanders and covert agents coming out saying it doesn't? We have the info. It doesn't work.

It is not as if we are running around breaking knee caps and cutting off thumbs to get information These pseudo drownings are pale in comparison to other methods that are used and practiced by the groups that we target when using this form of "torture" for obtaining information. I am tired of us having to hide behind this moral chastity belt, for which we can never escape, only to save face in they eyes of the over-sensitive public. A public that wants everything to be alright without actually doing some dirty work.
You do know people have died (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/35111prs20080430.html) after (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/afgh-m10.shtml) we (http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/21236prs20051024.html) tortured (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/christmas-story-death-o_b_78204.html) them (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6188.htm) right (http://www.counterpunch.org/phillips12022005.html)?

The terrorists have no respect for our basic right to live, why should i or anyone care about their humanity, when they have none, and when they wouldn't think twice about doing the same to me or you?
You'd think it would be obvious. Because we're not terrorists. Well, we're not supposed to be.

some people are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that is unfortunate.
If we did our homework and actually gave them fair trials it would happen less often, but this just proves how ineffective torture can be if we're trying to get info from people we don't even know are guilty.

But it happens all the time. How many people have been in prison for 20 + years, falsely convicted? Accidents do happen. But i believe that the bennies outweigh the costs.
What benefits? And I bet you'd feel differently if it was you or one of your loved ones. But because we use the term terrorist, and it's them all the way over there, you're perfectly fine with it. You'd think you'd want us to be extra careful and do a better job of making sure we don't make as many mistakes as we try to do here with our, though not perfect at least it's there, legal system. That "oh well" attitude that's actually been pretty prevalent with our foreign policy is one of the reasons why they hate us so much.

And i certainly don't live in a black and white hollywood world.
You sure seem to.

I want to feel like my government is doing something to protect me and my family whatever it takes.
Feel that way all you want, it isn't true.

i believe the title of this thread was... is water boarding ever o.k ? A question which is meant to bring about others opinions.
Well no. It was a question about whether or not it was ever justifiable, from the position that is isn't. We've proved why it isn't, what the alternatives are, and the negatives it can do that aren't justified because there are few, if any, positives. The only actual being that it makes people like you feel better, while not really doing much to stop the actual problems. You and those who agree with you have yet to actually prove that it will work. Neither can the gov. Nor can they defend the fact that it's against laws we agreed to, and have even prosecuted others for. Yet they do it. The excuse being...? Because they can?

I have no need or want to further my position, nor do i feel like doing any research, no matter how short to justify my opinion on this matter to anyone. I have stated my opinion and you have stated yours. I am entitled to my opinion and I really don't care if anyone disagrees with it.
Your opinion is based on a fallacy. We get this time and time again where someone says something that is wrong, then calls it opinion when they can't back it up. It's not opinion to believe something incorrect. Your favorite color is opinion. Whether is ok or not, whether it's justified or if it works, is not about opinion. You can either prove it, or you can't. You can't. We can prove it isn't and doesn't. It's also been employed by those in power, to our detriment. By supporting it, it's more than just opinion as well. It's enabling our gov to do something they shouldn't. You can believe the sky is green. You can believe the Earth is flat. You can believe we should nuke everyone who pisses us off. Doesn't make it right if we do. What we're doing is wrong, it doesn't work, and it's hurting us. No matter what you believe, that is is the reality of the situation.

And no i am not living in a fantasy world
You are if you believe torture is ok and works.

I believe that water boarding is a useful tool
But it isn't.

the same as some believe that there is a god.
Not the same thing at all, unless your belief hurts others, claiming to help us but doesn't.

"Purely on emotion." Am i not entitled to that?
The issue is, is the gov entitled to employ it and why?

Because both are a matter of opinion.
When did the meaning of opinion change? Torture is opinion. Global Warming is opinion. The failures of the Iraq War are opinion. The current economic situation is opinion. What next? The Earth is flat, but that's ok for me to say because it's my opinion? This just amazes me. No, this isn't opinion. You're trying to argue that torture is effective and worth the negatives. Using no proof. Calling it opinion because you can't. It's not our fault you haven't read our links, backing up our "opinions" with proof. Evidence that it doesn't, with all the negatives, sometimes from experts who know better than those of us who don't. No offense, but you've clearly shown you don't understand the situation, as with saying it's just pouring water on "terrorists" faces, ignoring that people, including the innocent, have been killed. That doesn't make what you're saying just as valid, just by calling it opinion. It makes it an uninformed one. Reread the thread if you haven't already. Read the others posted here. Read the links. You can't tell me after all that you still believe what you do. You just can't.

[skunk]

some people are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that is unfortunate.It is more than unfortunate, it is a regular occurrence, especially when bounty payments are offered or when people are arrested simply for having a similar name to someone who is wanted. It is precisely because the system is recognised as being potentially so flawed and open to abuse that checks and balances are built into the process, all of which are bypassed by the summary "justice" you apparently support, on the grounds that you want your government to give the appearance - whether it achieves anything by sacrificing all moral authority by doing so or not - of doing something to protect you (and of course, your children, let us not forget the children) when it is your administration all along which has put your sorry butt in so much perceived danger. It is incumbent on you to produce one single, verifiable piece of evidence of one single instance where the use of cruel, unusual, inhumane treatment in contravention of all your country's international obligations has saved a single life. If you cannot, then you have no excuse whatever for supporting the infliction of such treatment on anyone, presumed guilty or otherwise.

Your John Wayne quotation does not reflect real life.

[.Andy]

“If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow.”~ john wayne
Quote in support of gay marriage.

[63dot]

i had no idea what category it fit under, or had ever heard of the term, then john mccain, who is an expert on it, showed his strong reaction against the use of it in the gop debates

and i know he was beaten, starved, poisoned, etc and he considered waterboarding in the same category

[63dot]

on the bigger topic of a necessary evil, while i oppose waterboarding, i do think the military is a necessary evil when concerning the topic of torture, cruely, and violence

i am christian and i do ask, "what would jesus do?"

and he didn't start an army, but:

one christian personnel officer for the navy i knew once told me his goal was to work himself out of the navy...then i thought he meant reach 20 years and get retired (he had well over 20 years)...but he meant to make the world a better place to the point where the usa, the world's moral leader in his eyes because of our constitution, would usher on an age where there would never need to be a military anywhere...and soon

he would like nothing better than to see no military or need of one in the usa or need to wear the uniform, even though his had more stuff on it than any i had ever seen next to some general on tv

he was very humble and had absolutely no pride in the military...he was a swords to plowshares type of guy

some could say our initial buildup of nukes in the 50s (strength through power) led to the eventual salt treaties, and further nuclear arms disarmament

[solvs]

i had no idea what category it fit under, or had ever heard of the term, then john mccain, who is an expert on it, showed his strong reaction against the use of it in the gop debates
He's flip flopped and now supports it.

on the bigger topic of a necessary evil, while i oppose waterboarding, i do think the military is a necessary evil when concerning the topic of torture, cruely, and violence
Military, and even force sometimes, yes. But torture? No. It doesn't work. Not in a provable way other methods couldn't. All it does it make things worse. Makes us worse. Make us look worse too. How are we eradicating evil if we become it in attempt to do so? It's been called a necessary evil, but it isn't necessary, just evil.

[solvs]

Here's another reason why we shouldn't torture for info we could get otherwise:

US drops charges against 9/11 suspect detained at Guantánamo (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/14/usa.guantanamo)

"Mr al-Qahtani never made a single statement that was not extracted through torture or the threat of torture," the Centre for Constitutional Rights, which represented al-Qahtani, said.

"The unconscionable techniques used on him are well-documented and were authorised directly by the White House."

The Saudi-born al-Qahtani was brutally interrogated for 48 straight days at Guantánamo in 2002 using a plan approved by former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Charges against him were dismissed "without prejudice", but the Pentagon claims the right to reinstate them at any time and to keep holding him at Guantánamo.
Oops. Even if they are guilty of something, we can't believe their confessions, nor use what we extracted from them. So no, torture isn't a good tool against the guilty either. And if they were innocent? Well than that's even worse now isn't it.

[63dot]

He's flip flopped and now supports it.


Military, and even force sometimes, yes. But torture? No. It doesn't work. Not in a provable way other methods couldn't. All it does it make things worse. Makes us worse. Make us look worse too. How are we eradicating evil if we become it in attempt to do so? It's been called a necessary evil, but it isn't necessary, just evil.

at the military college a friend of mine in the marines was telling me the concept was to disable the enemy's equipment, mobility, and communication and win the battle, but people get killed in very cruel ways even though that is not the primary object of war

the military, on a show i saw on the history channel, particularly the marines are working on non lethal methods in lieu of using live ammo...sometimes live ammo needs to be used, but where it can be minimized, there are hopes to alleviate death and injury as much as possible

there are non lethal lasers, bean bag shotguns, non lethal chemicals, and other options which are better than taking a round from a machine gun or tank

until conflict does not involve death and injury, it's all torture and thus unacceptable

try diplomacy first, then if that doesn't work, then non lethal weapons, but this whole bullets and bombs thing has to go and one day future generations will look back on our time and consider what we do as warfare barbaric beyond imagination

during the first gulf war, there was a lot of belief in surgical strikes and fewer civilian casualties, but in this round in iraq, some of the messiest things we thought that were left behind from the vietnam days popped back up

insurgents and terrorists which were not known to have existed in iraq, from any know intelligence sources, came into existence because of our invasion of iraq by good ol W

what was thought to be a quick war again with low casualties has resulted this second time in many americans having personally known somebody to have died or been injured in iraq

i have a friend who has suffered from the war, and many people i know have known of an injury or death, while during the first gulf war, i never personally knew of anybody i came in contact with with a purple heart, for instance

it's all very, very sad and i don't even have that much hope that we can get out of iraq soon

[skunk]

during the first gulf war, there was a lot of belief in surgical strikes and fewer civilian casualties, but in this round in iraq, some of the messiest things we thought that were left behind from the vietnam days popped back upI agree with most of your post, but the distinction between the deaths of civilians and conscripted troops is artificial: tens of thousands of troops were incinerated where they stood, let alone the thousands slaughtered on the "Highway of Death":
The Massacre of Withdrawing Soldiers on "The Highway of Death"

by Joyce Chediac

I want to give testimony on what are called the "highways of death." These are the two Kuwaiti roadways, littered with remains of 2,000 mangled Iraqi military vehicles, and the charred and dismembered bodies of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers, who were withdrawing from Kuwait on February 26th and 27th 1991 in compliance with UN resolutions.
U.S. planes trapped the long convoys by disabling vehicles in the front, and at the rear, and then pounded the resulting traffic jams for hours. "It was like shooting fish in a barrel," said one U.S. pilot. The horror is still there to see.

On the inland highway to Basra is mile after mile of burned, smashed, shattered vehicles of every description - tanks, armored cars, trucks, autos, fire trucks, according to the March 18, 1991, Time magazine. On the sixty miles of coastal highway, Iraqi military units sit in gruesome repose, scorched skeletons of vehicles and men alike, black and awful under the sun, says the Los Angeles Times of March 11, 1991. While 450 people survived the inland road bombing to surrender, this was not the case with the 60 miles of the coastal road. There for 60 miles every vehicle was strafed or bombed, every windshield is shattered, every tank is burned, every truck is riddled with shell fragments. No survivors are known or likely. The cabs of trucks were bombed so much that they were pushed into the ground, and it's impossible to see if they contain drivers or not. Windshields were melted away, and huge tanks were reduced to shrapnel.

"Even in Vietnam I didn't see anything like this. It's pathetic," said Major Bob Nugent, an Army intelligence officer. This one-sided carnage, this racist mass murder of Arab people, occurred while White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater promised that the U.S. and its coalition partners would not attack Iraqi forces leaving Kuwait. This is surely one of the most heinous war crimes in contemporary history.

The Iraqi troops were not being driven out of Kuwait by U.S. troops as the Bush administration maintains. They were not retreating in order to regroup and fight again. In fact, they were withdrawing, they were going home, responding to orders issued by Baghdad, announcing that it was complying with Resolution 660 and leaving Kuwait. At 5:35 p.m. (Eastern standard Time) Baghdad radio announced that Iraq's Foreign Minister had accepted the Soviet cease-fire proposal and had issued the order for all Iraqi troops to withdraw to postions held before August 2, 1990 in compliance with UN Resolution 660. President Bush responded immediately from the White House saying (through spokesman Marlin Fitzwater) that "there was no evidence to suggest the Iraqi army is withdrawing. In fact, Iraqi units are continuing to fight. . . We continue to prosecute the war." On the next day, February 26, 1991, Saddam Hussein announced on Baghdad radio that Iraqi troops had, indeed, begun to withdraw from Kuwait and that the withdrawal would be complete that day. Again, Bush reacted, calling Hussein's announcement "an outrage" and "a cruel hoax."

Eyewitness Kuwaitis attest that the withdrawal began the afternoon of February 26, 1991 and Baghdad radio announced at 2:00 AM (local time) that morning that the government had ordered all troops to withdraw.

The massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Common Article III, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who are out of combat. The point of contention involves the Bush administration's claim that the Iraqi troops were retreating to regroup and fight again. Such a claim is the only way that the massacre which occurred could be considered legal under international law. But in fact the claim is false and obviously so. The troops were withdrawing and removing themselves from combat under direct orders from Baghdad that the war was over and that Iraq had quit and would fully comply with UN resolutions. To attack the soldiers returning home under these circumstances is a war crime.http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm
116498

[hulugu]

Quote in support of gay marriage.


:D
Thanks .Andy, there's beer all over my desk now.

[hulugu]

absolutely, whatever it takes to get the job done.

...It is not as if we are running around breaking knee caps and cutting off thumbs to get information These pseudo drownings are pale in comparison to other methods that are used and practiced by the groups that we target when using this form of "torture" for obtaining information. I am tired of us having to hide behind this moral chastity belt, for which we can never escape, only to save face in they eyes of the over-sensitive public. A public that wants everything to be alright without actually doing some dirty work. The terrorists have no respect for our basic right to live, why should i or anyone care about their humanity, when they have none, and when they wouldn't think twice about doing the same to me or you?

Well, I have an interesting question for you. Why stop at waterboarding? Why not smash kneecaps, crush testicles, burn, shock, boil, your subject until he starts telling what you need to know? Is there a limit to the depravity you're going to require a CIA officer to engage in to protect you?

Of course, if you'd read through the tread, you'll notice not only serious moral objections, which I think go beyond a squemish polity, but serious technical problems that show torture fails to provide the kind of accurate intel using in the commonly referenced scenario.

Secondly, since Godwin's has already been invoked, the US Armed Forces managed to beat the Germans without resorting to slave labor camps, genocide, or torture.

[compuwar]

Sticking to your principles, if you have any, and abiding by all of those international treaties to which your country is a signatory, which ban such activities unequivocally. Torture is not acceptable, period. Nor has it ever been demonstrated to have prevented an attack, so you would soil your linen to no purpose.

Which treaties are those? The Geneva Conventions apply to uniformed forces and the UN Convention applies to "territory under your jurisdiction-" so neither of those is actually unequivocal.

While I think torture is wrong, there have been several claims in the media that Kalid Sheik Mohommed's waterboarding got information that stopped attacks- and several claims that it got false information- obviously we don't know for sure if either or both are true. Only history will tell us if the information was effective and only then if all the evidence hasn't been destroyed. Since it can't currently be demonstrated that it hasn't prevented an attack, I'd say that at this point the only valid argument is a moral one.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

Seems to be rather well-balanced overall.

If it worked- does that make it right? If not right, worth it? How do you balance the cost of an innocent life with the mental and physical torture of a sworn enemy who's killed thousands of innocents?

While I think torture is wrong, I also think theft is wrong- but if I was starving and stealing food was the only obvious way to stay alive, I'm not sure how I'd look at it. I'm not sure how I'd make the call if I was in that position. War is always ugly, and the "enhanced interrogation techniques" are being used against those who started the war by targeting non-combatants- maybe sometimes fighting fire with fire beats shooting from the moral high ground. Maybe innocent lives are worth more than morals in some situations- it's a tough call. Given what we've seen happen in other wars, the level of abuses are relatively low- and certainly not differently humane than chopping off the heads of kidnapped and unarmed reporters.

Let's say it was 10% effective, is a 1 in 10 chance of potentially stopping another thousand innocent deaths worth it? If it were really your friends and family would you really always say "it's not ever worth it?" I'm not sure I'd be that objective.

[compuwar]

Secondly, since Godwin's has already been invoked, the US Armed Forces managed to beat the Germans without resorting to slave labor camps, genocide, or torture.


http://hnn.us/articles/30624.html
http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/07/torture-in-germany-after-world-war-ii/

Including the following text:

Worse still were the mock executions, where the men were led off in hoods, while their guards told them they were approaching the gallows. Prisoners were actually lifted bodily off the ground to convince them they were about to swing. More conventional methods of torture included kicks to the groin, deprivation of sleep and food and savage beatings. When the Americans set up a commission of inquiry into the methods used by their investigators, they found that, of the 139 cases examined, 137 had “had their testicles permanently destroyed by kicks received from the American War Crimes Investigation team.”

Anyone of any nationality who had had any contact with the Soviet Zone as a deserter, refugee or ex-POW of the Russians and who fell into British or American hands could find himself in one of these interrogation centers, and exposed to appalling brutality. Among these were actual Soviet agents … Their methods included, among other things, savage beatings, starvation, deprivation of sleep, and removal of clothing. Men were kept standing for hours. Some only made it to interrogation on all fours. Many never came out alive … In the British-run prisons, when nothing more could be got out of a prisoner he was brought before a secret military court where he would be tried on a trumped-up charge; his silence was ensured by a severe prison sentence. The Political Branch of the British Control Commission soon stopped that particular practice. According to one Political Branch document, a sentence of any kind could not be imposed on someone “whose only crime is to have had the misfortune to acquire a too detailed knowledge of our methods of interrogation.”

So, it would seem that there's not a lot of new in today's headlines...

[hulugu]

...I'm not sure how I'd make the call if I was in that position. War is always ugly, and the "enhanced interrogation techniques" are being used against those who started the war by targeting non-combatants- maybe sometimes fighting fire with fire beats shooting from the moral high ground. Maybe innocent lives are worth more than morals in some situations- it's a tough call. Given what we've seen happen in other wars, the level of abuses are relatively low- and certainly not differently humane than chopping off the heads of kidnapped and unarmed reporters.

Let's say it was 10% effective, is a 1 in 10 chance of potentially stopping another thousand innocent deaths worth it? If it were really your friends and family would you really always say "it's not ever worth it?" I'm not sure I'd be that objective.

First, I don't think we should compare ourselves to the wars of the past. There's just too many easy and horrible avenues there. Should we just build mountains of skulls like Tamerlane? Maybe we should sack villages and salt the earth? I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but I think the logic follows.
Secondly, I don't think we should compare ourselves to our enemies. Yes, I know what "they" did to Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl. Again, this doesn't seem like a avenue we want to travel? Are we also going to consider blowing up markets and schools? It's worth noting that fighting fire with fire only works because you're actually destroying part of the forrest, you're burning up the fuel hoping to save the rest of the forrest. The more I think about the phrase, the less I like it.

As for your objectivity, that's why we have laws and rules, that's why soldiers now operate under ROEs. We know that emotion takes over and so we try to construct systems, as best we can, to keep the emotional part of our decisions away from the rational part.
Sometimes it works. Sometimes it fails.

...So, it would seem that there's not a lot of new in today's headlines...

Thanks for the links. I think, however, that the links show just what I'm talking about. Even the "Greatest Generation" was capable of kicking the hell out of someone and then justifying it (or burying the evidence). There was no attempt to get information, rather it was an act of revenge, an act of cruelty. And, that's what Abu Gharib was about. We didn't win the war because we had better torturers, we won because we built more Jeeps and because a German made a mathematical error.

Lastly, I want to repeat that I think this point is very good:

...Only history will tell us if the information was effective and only then if all the evidence hasn't been destroyed. Since it can't currently be demonstrated that it hasn't prevented an attack, I'd say that at this point the only valid argument is a moral one....

I think this should close the thread on this note.

[Evangelion]

one christian personnel officer for the navy i knew once told me his goal was to work himself out of the navy...then i thought he meant reach 20 years and get retired (he had well over 20 years)...but he meant to make the world a better place to the point where the usa, the world's moral leader in his eyes because of our constitution, would usher on an age where there would never need to be a military anywhere...and soon

This might come as a shock to the Christian dude, but... Other countries have constitutions as well. Constitutions that give similar freedoms as the US Constitution does. So I fail to see how the constitution makes USA the "moral leader" of the world, as opposed to some other country.

[63dot]

This might come as a shock to the Christian dude, but... Other countries have constitutions as well. Constitutions that give similar freedoms as the US Constitution does. So I fail to see how the constitution makes USA the "moral leader" of the world, as opposed to some other country.

i think in the context of knowing him and his ideas, he meant we had the money and influence to make ourselves as a moral leader to follow

when asked why america reducing carbon emissions would make china and india follow suit, al gore said the usa should be the moral example where they, and the rest will follow

as far as the usa being an example, i truly don't think w has done a good job and i think he has set the usa back many years

if the usa can't provide a good example following its own constitution, it won't matter in the end if we don't get carbon emissions under control

at this point, it's not partisan but now, which may be too late, people are onto it

[Evangelion]

i think in the context of knowing him and his ideas, he meant we had the money and influence to make ourselves as a moral leader to follow

You don't need either to become a "moral leader". Moral leader is someone who leads a virtuous life. A kind of life that makes others think "I wish I was like that". You don't need money or influence to do that. Being moral is all it takes.

If someone is to be a morl leader, he should be that based solely on his morality, not on how much money or influence he has.

[63dot]

You don't need either to become a "moral leader". Moral leader is someone who leads a virtuous life. A kind of life that makes others think "I wish I was like that". You don't need money or influence to do that. Being moral is all it takes.

If someone is to be a morl leader, he should be that based solely on his morality, not on how much money or influence he has.

the only moral issue both sides in the usa believes is totally imperative is global warming and there is a lot of evidence that the right wing, which initially didn't make it an issue, are totally on board now

the last thing that united the usa was 9/11, but global warming has united the country in a longer lasting way since the enemy, carbon emissions can destroy the country, and all other countries

will it ever destroy the world and make every place inhabitable? maybe not, but i don't want to take that chance

we can't say, "oh, maybe we should not reduce carbon emissions in the usa because nobody else will, or they don't like the usa so why should we try?"

perhaps this global warming issue, political or not, is the first time in history that a moral issue has popped up universally...i can't think of any time in history where the entire world, or the vast majority of it, can potentially be affected

[compuwar]

i can't think of any time in history where the entire world, or the vast majority of it, can potentially be affected

Perhaps you missed the '60s, '70s and '80s and Mutually Assured Destruction. I can assure you the potential for global effect by thousands of nuclear warheads was rather significant.

[63dot]

Perhaps you missed the '60s, '70s and '80s and Mutually Assured Destruction. I can assure you the potential for global effect by thousands of nuclear warheads was rather significant.

i remember those days, but, with global warming, it will take more than two superpowers to kiss and make up

this will be an entire world effort for our very survival, not just two, or a few, countries

i think organizing a worldwide effort for any major cause is harder than it was for the usa and ussr to come to terms with the cold war

[skunk]

What the question boils down to is: are you going to allow defence against a perceived threat to overrule your principles? If so, then you are putting yourselves under permanent threat of abuse by the frightened or the unscrupulous amongst you.

As your Mr Franklin might have put it: Those who would give up Essential Liberty Principles to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety (- and will soon be deprived of both).

[63dot]

What the question boils down to is: are you going to allow defence against a perceived threat to overrule your principles? If so, then you are putting yourselves under permanent threat of abuse by the frightened or the unscrupulous amongst you.

As your Mr Franklin might have put it: Those who would give up Essential Liberty Principles to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety (- and will soon be deprived of both).

it's so unfortunate that w didn't believe in our core american values

now americans are spying on americans and we can't even travel freely through our own country

in some ways, our president's bumbled occupation of iraq has been the best recriuting tool of al qaeda

where al qaeda was found to be a non entitiy in iraq, or nearly so, our beloved w and his idea driven long presence in that country has made it a hotbed for al qaeda, and even for border crossing iranian terrorist groups which would have never made any attempt to help anyone in iraq in the past

what is also puzzling is that the vast majority of evidence showed al qaeda to be in afganistan and the usa has put that on the back burner behind iraq, which, very conveniently, has more oil

even true conservatives saw through this and if they do represent half of the usa, then w's 28% percent approval rating is certainly nothing to be proud about

could w dip below 20%?

i would not be surprised

[solvs]

Mukasey on Waterboarding, Surveillance: Need to “Push” to “Limits of the Law” (http://www.muckraked.com/wordpress/2008/05/23/mukasey-on-waterboarding-surveillance-we-needed-to-be-more-agressive/)

Here's the problem with that, if we're so eager to throw aside our rights when we're scared, when level heads should be held most, what's to stop them from doing it when it isn't needed, especially if claiming a threat? Or creating one? I'm not saying that's what's happening now, but it certainly has, and they certainly have taken advantage of the situation. When times are tough, when something like 9/11 happens, our gov should be telling us not to be afraid, not capitalizing on it to achieve their goals and gain further power. Then what happens is, well, basically what's happening now. People become more suspicious of the gov. Less feeling like they work for us, protect us, and more feeling that they're against us, or even using us. Or that they are the ones to fear. Examples:

8 million Americans are "potential suspects" in illegal domestic surveillance program (http://goodgirlroxie.blogspot.com/2008/05/8-million-americans-are-potential.html)
US residents in military brigs? Govt says it's war (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/ENEMY_COMBATANT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-05-24-09-57-22)
Report: Air marshals grounded by government's no-fly list (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/04/report-air-mars.html)
George W Bush for Mass Murder and War Crimes and Torture (http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/99-americas/3950-george-w-bush-for-mass-murder-and-war-crimes-and-torture.html) (Pakistan)
No-fly blacklist snares political activists (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/09/27/MN181034.DTL)

[Iscariot]

8 million Americans are "potential suspects" in illegal domestic surveillance program (http://goodgirlroxie.blogspot.com/2008/05/8-million-americans-are-potential.html)
US residents in military brigs? Govt says it's war (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/ENEMY_COMBATANT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-05-24-09-57-22)
Report: Air marshals grounded by government's no-fly list (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/04/report-air-mars.html)
George W Bush for Mass Murder and War Crimes and Torture (http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/99-americas/3950-george-w-bush-for-mass-murder-and-war-crimes-and-torture.html) (Pakistan)
No-fly blacklist snares political activists (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/09/27/MN181034.DTL)

FBI trying to infiltrate vegan potlucks (http://articles.citypages.com/2008-05-21/news/moles-wanted/)

[solvs]

FBI trying to infiltrate vegan potlucks (http://articles.citypages.com/2008-05-21/news/moles-wanted/)

I was hoping that was a joke, but I guess not. :(

[hulugu]

FBI trying to infiltrate vegan potlucks (http://articles.citypages.com/2008-05-21/news/moles-wanted/)

Well, those vegans are trying to destroy our country, I can no longer sit back and allow vegan infiltration, vegan indoctrination, vegan subversion, and the international vegan conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Someone send in a SWAT team, they're trying to make tofu!

[63dot]

Mukasey on Waterboarding, Surveillance: Need to “Push” to “Limits of the Law” (http://www.muckraked.com/wordpress/2008/05/23/mukasey-on-waterboarding-surveillance-we-needed-to-be-more-agressive/)

Here's the problem with that, if we're so eager to throw aside our rights when we're scared, when level heads should be held most, what's to stop them from doing it when it isn't needed, especially if claiming a threat? Or creating one? I'm not saying that's what's happening now, but it certainly has, and they certainly have taken advantage of the situation. When times are tough, when something like 9/11 happens, our gov should be telling us not to be afraid, not capitalizing on it to achieve their goals and gain further power. Then what happens is, well, basically what's happening now. People become more suspicious of the gov. Less feeling like they work for us, protect us, and more feeling that they're against us, or even using us. Or that they are the ones to fear. Examples:

8 million Americans are "potential suspects" in illegal domestic surveillance program (http://goodgirlroxie.blogspot.com/2008/05/8-million-americans-are-potential.html)
US residents in military brigs? Govt says it's war (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/ENEMY_COMBATANT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-05-24-09-57-22)
Report: Air marshals grounded by government's no-fly list (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/04/report-air-mars.html)
George W Bush for Mass Murder and War Crimes and Torture (http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/99-americas/3950-george-w-bush-for-mass-murder-and-war-crimes-and-torture.html) (Pakistan)
No-fly blacklist snares political activists (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/09/27/MN181034.DTL)

what made me actually start law school were two books

all the president's men and the sequel, nixon - the last days

what nixon did, which horrified america, was his use of taxpayer funds to spy on enemies, but namely the left wing of the democratic party...that was nixon's undoing

at the very least, he could of used his own money, but he used "our" money and that didn't sit well with liberals, or conseratives

w seems to be more interested in what leftist americans are saying vs. the real al qaeda agents in the usa, and that seems to be seen by most

w is using the patriot act for his, and his cronies' personal gain, and that never sits well with the rest of us, conservative or liberal, who are not in his very inner circle of beneficiaries

there is no coincidence into his negative job ratings, of which a solid third of, come from republicans

[63dot]

Mukasey on Waterboarding, Surveillance: Need to “Push” to “Limits of the Law” (http://www.muckraked.com/wordpress/2008/05/23/mukasey-on-waterboarding-surveillance-we-needed-to-be-more-agressive/)

Here's the problem with that, if we're so eager to throw aside our rights when we're scared, when level heads should be held most, what's to stop them from doing it when it isn't needed, especially if claiming a threat? Or creating one? I'm not saying that's what's happening now, but it certainly has, and they certainly have taken advantage of the situation. When times are tough, when something like 9/11 happens, our gov should be telling us not to be afraid, not capitalizing on it to achieve their goals and gain further power. Then what happens is, well, basically what's happening now. People become more suspicious of the gov. Less feeling like they work for us, protect us, and more feeling that they're against us, or even using us. Or that they are the ones to fear. Examples:

8 million Americans are "potential suspects" in illegal domestic surveillance program (http://goodgirlroxie.blogspot.com/2008/05/8-million-americans-are-potential.html)
US residents in military brigs? Govt says it's war (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/ENEMY_COMBATANT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-05-24-09-57-22)
Report: Air marshals grounded by government's no-fly list (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/04/report-air-mars.html)
George W Bush for Mass Murder and War Crimes and Torture (http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/99-americas/3950-george-w-bush-for-mass-murder-and-war-crimes-and-torture.html) (Pakistan)
No-fly blacklist snares political activists (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/09/27/MN181034.DTL)

what made me actually start law school were two books

all the president's men and the sequel, nixon - the last days

what nixon did, which horrified america, was his use of taxpayer funds to spy on enemies, but namely the left wing of the democratic party...that was nixon's undoing

at the very least, he could of used his own money, but he used "our" money and that didn't sit well with liberals, or conservatives

w seems to be more interested in what leftist americans are saying vs. the real al qaeda agents in the usa, and that seems to be seen by most

w is using the patriot act for his, and his cronies' personal gain, and that never sits well with the rest of us, conservative or liberal, who are not in his very inner circle of beneficiaries

there is no coincidence into his negative job ratings, of which a solid third of, come from republicans

[Iscariot]

Well, those vegans are trying to destroy our country, I can no longer sit back and allow vegan infiltration, vegan indoctrination, vegan subversion, and the international vegan conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Someone send in a SWAT team, they're trying to make tofu!

Do I look all rancid and clotted? You look at me, Hulu. Eh? Look, eh? And I eat a lot of tofu, you know. I'm what you might call a tofu man, Hulu - that's what I am. And I can swear to you, my boy, swear to you, that there's nothing wrong with my bodily fluids. Not a thing, Hulie.

[redwarrior]

Well, those vegans are trying to destroy our country, I can no longer sit back and allow vegan infiltration, vegan indoctrination, vegan subversion, and the international vegan conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Someone send in a SWAT team, they're trying to make tofu!

looks to me like there is something wrong with your bodily fluids. hell, you're just mad cause we're going to out live you by like 100 years!
:eek:

[Iscariot]

looks to me like there is something wrong with your bodily fluids. hell, you're just mad cause we're going to out live you by like 100 years!
:eek:

(it was a quote from a movie)

[Gelfin]

Do I look all rancid and clotted? You look at me, Hulu. Eh? Look, eh? And I eat a lot of tofu, you know. I'm what you might call a tofu man, Hulu - that's what I am. And I can swear to you, my boy, swear to you, that there's nothing wrong with my bodily fluids. Not a thing, Hulie.

I suggest pure grain alcohol and rainwater.

[redwarrior]

(it was a quote from a movie)
which?

[.Andy]

which?
Google image search* bodily fluids. It's the first result.


*make sure safe search is off.

[j26]

The single most convincing argument I've heard about torture is that allowing it in any circumstances breaks the taboo, and once the taboo is broken, it simply becomes a matter of degree. People say it is only acceptable in extreme circumstances, but who defines what extreme circumstances justify it? There is an inherent human instinct to push the boundaries of what's allowed, and it is idiocy to say that the boundaries of what constitutes "acceptable" torture will not be pushed further and further.

Sex before marriage was once taboo, now it's normal. The same can happen for torture.

[Motley]

Do I look all rancid and clotted? You look at me, Hulu. Eh? Look, eh? And I eat a lot of tofu, you know. I'm what you might call a tofu man, Hulu - that's what I am. And I can swear to you, my boy, swear to you, that there's nothing wrong with my bodily fluids. Not a thing, Hulie.

O.P.E.

[skunk]

Sex before marriage was once taboo, now it's normal. The same can happen for torture.I know what you mean: sex before marriage is only permissible in exceptional circumstances. ;)

When has it ever been taboo? :confused:

But seriously, I agree, as do the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions. Torture, inhumane and degrading treatment, cruel and unusual punishment should all be absolutely forbidden under all circumstances. Period.
This is what every signatory to those documents has already agreed to anyway, so it should not even be a subject for debate.

[j26]

When has it (sex before marriage) ever been taboo? :confused:


You've obviously never lived in Ireland :D

[mactastic]

I guess I'd have "situational ethics" in a very limited fashion. While my basic answer is No Torture, let me offer a couple of hypothets.

Were I a combat leader in the field and my unit captured an enemy who knew where his own unit was setting up an ambush, he'd probably be subjected to some sort of torture. I wouldn't ask any of my men to do anything. I wouldn't really want to. But the lives of my men are very much more important to me than anything else.

The other is on the far-fetched side. Say I had custody of someone who knew the whereabouts of some major explosive device. Say I had knowledge that it would explode within some short-ish period of time, killing many non-combatant people. I'd do whatever I thought would inform me of the location of the device.

But I don't see that getting names and addresses is as important as staying as close to our own ideals as is possible.

'Rat
Breaking the law is always an option if you are convinced your course of action is worth the sacrifice. But a just society can never condone such actions.

If torture has never worked, why has it been practiced for centuries? Not saying it works all the time, but it seems as if it had no benefit at all the practice would have stopped long ago...

A first hand account from John McCain (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/100012.shtml) says that torture has actually worked. That doesn't mean the US should practice it, but to say it never works is silly. The fact that the practice is still around means it works at least 51% of the time. Just because you can't search the internet and find "loads" evidence that torture has worked doesn't mean it never has.
The question isn't whether it works, but rather is it the most effective way to gain information. All the studies I've seen have said rapport-building is far more reliable than torture, and it has the pleasant side benefit of allowing prosecutions to proceed in open court once information has been gained.

Does torture work? Sure sometimes, but less reliably than other methods and with disastrous legal and public-relations side effects.

Why does it still go on, despite evidence that it's less effective than other methods? Why does capital punishment continue, despite no evidence of it's deterrent effect? Shouldn't Texas have the lowest murder rate in the nation?

Exactly. Some things are done for emotional rather than rational reasons. Torture makes certain people feel like they're Big Men. Their emotional reaction to reducing "others" who are different to a quivering pile of waste in front of them is enough of a reason for them to justify torture.

And of course, the flip side is that if any foreign government captured American troops (or just citizens who were in the wrong place at the wrong time) and held them incommunicado for years while subjecting them to the kinds of acts we've subjected people to, the same people who are saying torture is acceptable would be screaming for bloody vengeance. And yet the irony is lost on most of them...

[63dot]

Why does capital punishment continue, despite no evidence of it's deterrent effect? Shouldn't Texas have the lowest murder rate in the nation?


at this point, i don't think that the deterrent argument works from any major viewpoint

it comes down to the difference between torts and criminal law

torts comes down to (mostly) getting compensation in the form of money where criminal law punishment involves that and either jail time or even the most extreme, which is capital punishment

so capital punishment, in its original quest, was to punish rather than to be used for a deterrent

that being said, i am still against capital punishment for moral reasons but saying it's not a deterrent doesn't fit the original reason behind it in the first place which was punishment

still our legal system in the usa stems from british common law developed in the late 1600s, and even the thought of one person being jailed or executed wrongly was considered a bigger social evil than wrongly letting 1000 people walk free (blackstone, referring to 1687 precedent)

our very constitution is based on progressive english philosophies of the 1600s and early 1700s, among other sources, and capital punishment, then, and more importantly now, has no place in our nation's democracy (especially with the wrongful death row convictions and life sentences - *see innocence project)

[solvs]

US accused of holding terror suspects on prison ships (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/02/usa.humanrights)

And:

What's Up Down There? (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/whats-up-down-there-by-digby-i-think-we.html)

The Defense Department was mum Friday on the reasons for the abrupt removal of a Guantánamo war court judge who had threatened to suspend the trial of Canadian captive Omar Khadr in a showdown with the controversial prison camp.

Khadr's lawyers were notified without explanation Thursday that the military judge, Army Col. Peter Brownback III, had been replaced by a new Army judge arriving at the commissions amid a surge in Pentagon prosecutions.

Air Force Capt. André Kok, spokesman for the Office of Military Commissions, said in a statement the sudden switch was the result of it was "a mutual decision between Col. Brownback and the Army that he revert to his retired status when his current active duty orders expire in June."

[hulugu]

Google image search* bodily fluids. It's the first result.


*make sure safe search is off.

Oh no, don't let her do that. ;)

Redwarrior,

It's from Dr. Strangelove Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. Whenever someone blusters about a group of people whose shear existence threatens America, this line pops into my head. Of course, I replaced communists with vegans.

US accused of holding terror suspects on prison ships (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/02/usa.humanrights)


Since when did Marine assault ships become holding centers? Apparently, the USS Peleliu and Bataan are being used along with 17 other ships.

This also seemed quote worthy:
"By its own admission, the US government is currently detaining at least 26,000 people without trial in secret prisons, and information suggests up to 80,000 have been 'through the system' since 2001.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/02/usa.humanrights).

[kavika411]

I have scanned through much of this post, and there seems to be a strong consensus that waterboarding is wrong under all circumstances. I am curious whether there is the same strong consensus that targeting civilians for death is wrong under all circumstances.

[Iscariot]

I have scanned through much of this post, and there seems to be a strong consensus that waterboarding is wrong under all circumstances. I am curious whether there is the same strong consensus that targeting civilians for death is wrong under all circumstances.

And why, good sir, wouldn't there be?

[kavika411]

And why, good sir, wouldn't there be?

I was implying nothing. I simply wonder if there is the same consensus that civilians should never be targeted for death.

[hulugu]

I was implying nothing. I simply wonder if there is the same consensus that civilians should never be targeted for death.

I'm not sure about consensus, but IMHO, intentionally targeting civilians with the weapons of war is morally wrong. Of course, civilians will be killed during any armed conflict whether through direct or indirect means, but our armies should never attack a civilian population for the sake of killing civilians.

[kavika411]

but our armies should never attack a civilian population for the sake of killing civilians.

Thanks for your reply. The last part of you comment speaks to what I was getting at. To expand on my question, do we have a consensus that targeting civilians is never acceptable, regardless of who it is doing the targeting, be it the United States military, Islamic extremists, or anyone else?

[Gelfin]

I was implying nothing. I simply wonder if there is the same consensus that civilians should never be targeted for death.

You're clearly setting up a point by coaxing people into agreeing with you so you can dramatically leap up and shout "A-HA!" before presenting a clever generally-tolerated example of this happening, most likely Hiroshima.

So how about we just skip to the end.

Even if we played this game out, the conclusion you are angling for is a non sequitur. It in no way informs the question whether we should abandon legal and moral opposition to torture as a tactic. We should not. The morally dubious actions of yesterday, whatever their outcome, have no bearing on what sort of people we choose to be today.

[kavika411]

You're clearly setting up a point by coaxing people into agreeing with you so you can dramatically leap up and shout "A-HA!" before presenting a clever generally-tolerated example of this happening, most likely Hiroshima.

So how about we just skip to the end.

Even if we played this game out, the conclusion you are angling for is a non sequitur. It in no way informs the question whether we should abandon legal and moral opposition to torture as a tactic. We should not. The morally dubious actions of yesterday, whatever their outcome, have no bearing on what sort of people we choose to be today.

My apologies for upsetting you. Please read my entry above yours and you will see there was neither an "A-HA!" moment nor any "clever generally-tolerated example."

[skunk]

Thanks for your reply. The last part of you comment speaks to what I was getting at. To expand on my question, do we have a consensus that targeting civilians is never acceptable, regardless of who it is doing the targeting, be it the United States military, Islamic extremists, or anyone else?As signatories, and joint authors, of the Geneva Conventions, I would certainly hope that civilians would never be targeted by the US. Unfortunately, however, George Bush and his boys are no more concerned about this than about torture, illegal detention, rendition, pre-emptive war, supporting abusers of human rights or using banned weapons. The high altitude bombing of Baghdad, the slaughter in Fallujah (including the documented use of White Phosphorus and Napalm), the exemplary punishments, the repeated cutting off of essential services to civilian populations, the flagrant abuse of due process at Guantanamo Bay, Bagram Airbase, Abu Ghraib, Diego Garcia and various "black" facilities in Romania, Poland, Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Central Asia, testify to the utter contempt in which the present Administration holds the "civilised values" and "liberties" they are so proud to represent.

[hulugu]

Thanks for your reply. The last part of you comment speaks to what I was getting at. To expand on my question, do we have a consensus that targeting civilians is never acceptable, regardless of who it is doing the targeting, be it the United States military, Islamic extremists, or anyone else?

Well, and again I can only speak for myself, but I don't believe you'll find anyone who supports the relentless attacks on civilians in Iraq.

As skunk rightfully points out, while the US is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, we have willfully disregarded many of its provisions. I would like to point out that high-altitude bombing is not illegal and the failure to rebuild much of the Iraqi infrastructure is also not a crime, but rather a strategic blunder.
Lastly, there is serious disagreement over the use of White Phosphorus and Napalm. Both are considered "chemical" weapons, but this definition has not been agreed upon. Tellingly, the US at first denied the use of both in Iraq, but the weapons are not necessarily illegal.

The use of napalm was explicitly military, but since WP was used in Fallujah, it can be argued that it was used against a civilian population. This is a difficult argument.

[mactastic]

Thanks for your reply. The last part of you comment speaks to what I was getting at. To expand on my question, do we have a consensus that targeting civilians is never acceptable, regardless of who it is doing the targeting, be it the United States military, Islamic extremists, or anyone else?
That's a dicey question. How about civilians who are involved in military munitions manufacturing? Are they accceptable targets? What about non-uniformed civilians acting as mercenaries in a war zone? Are they off-limits? How about the finance people who provide money to combatants, whether uniformed or insurgent?

I'm afraid you'll have to be a little more specific about your definition of a civilian before you we can effectively say whether or not a particular civilian is an acceptable target or not.

[kavika411]

That's a dicey question.

Thanks for your reply, mactastic. I like it when people note that difficult questions take time to work through.

You asked if I could be more specific regarding the term "civilian." I'll try. I am talking about someone with absolutely no military ties. (I guess in an ivory tower sense we all have ties to the military, but that is not what I mean.) I mean the Iraqi whose closest link to the military is, unfortunately for him, the neighbor harboring a terrorist when the bombs start falling. I mean the guests who show up at a Bar Mitzvah in Israel before it is bombed. I mean the passengers going to work on a train in Madrid. So, to answer your question, I mean just plain old civilians.

It seems that it is easy for us to condemn torture, any time, any where. Without being rhetorical in the slightest, my question is whether we likewise find it easy to condemn the killing of civilians, any time, any where, by anyone. As a subquestion, do we hold other countries under a different set of rules - in terms of sheer judgment - when civilians are targeted, and if we do, why?

[solvs]

If this is where you're going, yes, terrorism is bad. Killing innocent people on purpose is bad. So is torturing people after confining them without due process when you don't have to. I am unhappy with accidental civilian death as well. It should be avoided as much as possible. But these are not the same things. Innocent people being killed by accident, or even neglect, is a world of difference between something like terrorist attacks designed to kill innocent people, or torturing someone on purpose when there are alternatives that are not only more humane but also more effective. IMO dropping napalm and white phosphorus, or cluster bombs, with the intent or even realization that civilians will be killed when other options are not only more humane but more effective, lean more towards what we are claiming to be fighting against.

Speaking of:

U.S. opts out of landmark cluster bomb treaty (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24889155/)
Weapons’ biggest makers, users not among 111 countries to adopt ban

If that's not what you meant, please come out and say it, else we ponder your ulterior motives.

[hulugu]

Thanks for your reply, mactastic. I like it when people note that difficult questions take time to work through.

You asked if I could be more specific regarding the term "civilian." I'll try. I am talking about someone with absolutely no military ties. (I guess in an ivory tower sense we all have ties to the military, but that is not what I mean.) I mean the Iraqi whose closest link to the military is, unfortunately for him, the neighbor harboring a terrorist when the bombs start falling. I mean the guests who show up at a Bar Mitzvah in Israel before it is bombed. I mean the passengers going to work on a train in Madrid. So, to answer your question, I mean just plain old civilians.

It seems that it is easy for us to condemn torture, any time, any where. Without being rhetorical in the slightest, my question is whether we likewise find it easy to condemn the killing of civilians, any time, any where, by anyone. As a subquestion, do we hold other countries under a different set of rules - in terms of sheer judgment - when civilians are targeted, and if we do, why?

I may be wrong, but I wonder if you're trying to lead the discussion towards a false dichotomy between protecting civilians and torturing someone.

[solvs]

I may be wrong, but I wonder if you're trying to lead the discussion towards a false dichotomy between protecting civilians and torturing someone.

That's kinda what I was getting too. Terrorism is bad so we should torture people. Even innocent ones. Because that's nothing like terrorism, 2 wrongs make a right, and the end justifies the means, even if neither are effective, let alone civilized. Freedom!

[kavika411]

To respond to the above two or three posts, I am not "trying to lead the discussion" towards anything other than discussion. I've raised questions that I think stimulate needed dialoge. It appears all they have stimulated is dialoge about the suspected motives of the questions. Unfortunate, and unfortunately typical.

[hulugu]

To respond to the above two or three posts, I am not "trying to lead the discussion" towards anything other than discussion. I've raised questions that I think stimulate needed dialoge. It appears all they have stimulated is dialoge about the suspected motives of the questions. Unfortunate, and unfortunately typical.

My apologies, your questions seem "leading" hence why I wrote my last post.

What do you think about the last two issues you've raised?

[solvs]

To respond to the above two or three posts, I am not "trying to lead the discussion" towards anything other than discussion. I've raised questions that I think stimulate needed dialoge. It appears all they have stimulated is dialoge about the suspected motives of the questions. Unfortunate, and unfortunately typical.

Sorry, it's just that we've been there before, so we're a little defensive if that's where we think things are headed. Still wondering where exactly you were going though. We can be a blunt lot here. Lay it all out on the table so we can get into an argument. Even if we agree. :p

[solvs]

Apparently, this guy thinks it's ok:

Rohrabacher: Torture At Guantanamo Simply ‘Hazing Pranks From Some Fraternity (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/04/rohrabacher-torture/)

Yeah, same thing. :rolleyes:

[skunk]

Apparently, this guy thinks it's ok:

Rohrabacher: Torture At Guantanamo Simply ‘Hazing Pranks From Some Fraternity (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/04/rohrabacher-torture/)

Yeah, same thing. :rolleyes:Perhaps Mr Rohrabacher should be subjected to the full menu of "hazing pranks" to let us have a first-hand assessment.

[solvs]

America's prison for terrorists often held the wrong men (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html)

So it's probably a good thing the Supreme Court ruled the prisoners there should have the right to appeal their stays (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25117953/). Putting Gitmo's future in jeopardy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/12/usa.guantanamo?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews). Even if some people (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/15/face-the-nation-gingrich-thinks-scotus-gitmo-decision-could-cost-us-a-city/) don't like it (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/13/mccain-slams-supreme-court-on-terrorist-detaine-1/).

[SMM]

I firmly believe that our interrogations exceeded waterboarding. Believe me, that technique (if that does not sound perverse), is actually on the conservative side of interrogation methods.

In Vietnam we used barbaric methods for interrogations. I know that some stories have circulated about this, but have largely been forgotten, if they had been believed at the time. One method was to take 4-5 VC up in a helicopter. There would be one or two hardcores, which were deemed 'expendable', and the rest were young scared guys. They would fly over the U Minh forrest at about 1000-2000 feet. The spooks would begin the interrogations. They would start with the hardcores, and ask them questions, which they really did not care what the answer was. They just pushed them out the door, to their deaths. Then the real targets were moved to the door, and they began again. Needless to say, cooperation was improved. A few were allowed to 'escape' and tell their story, but most never surprised captivity. I am am thankful I never had to participate, but my roommate was not so lucky.

I also know of even worse things, but I really do not want to delve much more into events that blew away the psyche of a 19 year old kid from Seattle. During the 70's, new techniques were developed, which are never mentioned, but I suspect they have been (or are being) used by the US. Probably not at Gitmo, but at some of the CIA foreign locations.

This last part is pure speculation on my part, and should be viewed in that light. I have zero supporting facts to substantiate it.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Anytime a man is given authority without checks and balances in govt you can bet they will abuse that authority. This is what our President has done as evident in todays report from the Physicians for Human Rights.

They are saying the administration is guilty of war crimes.http://cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/gitmo.detainees/index.html
Question is will anyone be held accountable?
Knowing Bushco they dont seem to be accountable for anything they do. Where is Congress? How many were tortured that were innocent?

Will the democrats do anything? can they even do anything with half of congress republican?

Torture isnt American at all. Were better then this and much better then our president.

[solvs]

I agree, this isn't the America we're supposed to be. We shouldn't let fear let us do such things. And worse, so easily, and with no accountability for those truly responsible. More on that:

General who probed Abu Ghraib says Bush officials committed war crimes (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/41514.html)
U.S. abuse of detainees was routine at Afghanistan bases (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/38775.html)
Pentagon planned harsh Guantánamo tactics, Senate probe reveals (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/17/guantanamo.usa)
CIA Played Larger Role In Advising Pentagon (Harsh Interrogation Methods Defended) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/17/AR2008061702862.html)
How Did the Department of Defense Decide to Authorize Torture, Cruel Treatment, and Violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice? (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/how-did-department-of-defense-decide-to.html)

Meanwhile, some people seem to think they can play dumb and it'll all be ok:

Feith Chickens Out Of Congressional Hearing On Torture, Refuses To Appear With Wilkerson (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/18/feith-chickens-out-of-hearing-on-abusive-interrogations-because-he-didnt-like-another-witness/)
Abu Ghraib? Doesn't Ring a Bell (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/17/AR2008061702673.html)

And the worst part:

Documents confirm U.S. hid detainees from Red Cross (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/41394.html)

I hate to go there, but what does that sound like...

[Dont Hurt Me]

Sounds like some 3rd world country or Communists and yet this is the United States? 100% Abomination to what we stand for!

What happened to Freedom Liberty and Justice for all?

[mactastic]

My guess is that several high-ranking Bush administration officials will have to be very careful about which countries they travel to after leaving office lest they be brought up on charges of war crimes.

Even if they never get prosecuted, it would do my heart good to know that Bush et. al. will be forced to spend their days avoiding foreign travel (despite the piles of money available to be had) lest they wind up in the Hague...

[solvs]

Rewriting the evidence (http://prairieweather.typepad.com/big_blue_stem/2008/06/rewriting-the-e.html)
Having ignored legal advice for over five years, the Bush administration is trying to shift the goal posts again, albeit in a new and flagrant fashion. Realizing that federal judges will now be reviewing "secret" evidence against Guantanamo detainees, prosecutors want to do a rewrite.
The government has stood behind the evidence for years. Military review boards relied on it to justify holding hundreds of prisoners indefinitely without charge. Justice Department attorneys said it was thoroughly and fairly reviewed.

Now that federal judges are about to review the evidence, however, the government says it needs to make changes.

The decision follows last week's Supreme Court ruling, which held that detainees have the right to challenge their detention in civilian court, not just before secret military panels.

Prosecutors don't just want to "update" the old, secret evidence, now that it's about to be reviewed in a civilian court. They want to add "new" evidence, evidence that presumably got lost in the prosecution's deep, kangaroo pockets.
Not fishy at all.

[Iscariot]

Unfortunate, and unfortunately typical.

Typical of what, exactly?

[solvs]

Osama bin Laden and habeas corpus (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/19/osama-bin-laden-and-habeas-corpus)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, either we all get rights or none of us do. A society is judged by how it treats the worst of it's people. I guess it could be argued that he isn't one of our people, but how much would it prove them wrong and prove democracy at it's best than to actually try Bin Laden fairly rather than the cowboy justice we've been pulling lately. It's not like it would be hard to prove him guilty, but the least we can do is make the effort to prove it. It's election season though, so I guess he'll still make a good talking point:

Republicans’ bizarre rediscovery of Osama bin Laden (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15937.html#more-15937)

Though is it me, or does this make the administration, and the GOP by proxy, look worse since they still haven't caught him?

[solvs]

In case anyone is going to use the new GOP talking points about how horrible the Supreme Court's decision is, I suggest you read this first:

McCain, Scalia and Yoo Peddle Discredited "Gitmo 30" Sound Bite (http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001115.htm)

It's pretty much what you'd think it is. More here (though some of it is repeated):

Report: Scalia’s Claim That Released Gitmo Prisoners Have Killed Americans Is An ‘Urban Legend’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/21/gitmo-report-scalia/)

And something related and kind of interesting here:

After the Waterboarding (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/inteldump/2008/06/after_the_waterboarding.html)
And finally, there's the culture of the CIA and the question of whether it can do these kinds of things effectively. The American intelligence community has been whipsawed by the Bush administration about as badly as the military, and maybe worse because it's all been out of public view. For years, the CIA has accepted and implemented many of the administration's stupidest policies, especially in the interrogation realm. This article may reflect the feelings of a few within the CIA, but it does not reflect the dominant organizational sentiments. The next administration will need to rebuild a great deal at Langley, focusing on the agency's organizational culture and the way approaches human intelligence operations.
Refuting some of the points, but agreeing with the conclusions of the NY Times piece here (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22ksm.html), more or less.

[solvs]

Yoo And Addington On The Hill (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/yoo-and-addington-on-hill-by-dday.html)
There's quite a remarkable hearing going on today in a House subcommittee. David Addington and John Yoo are voluntarily testifying about the torture practices of the Bush Administration.

Went about as well as you'd think it would.

Kafka Is Alive And Well (http://www.1115.org/2008/06/25/kafka-is-alive-and-well/)
And no doubt in a secret CIA prison somewhere, being regularly motivated to advise the Bush administration on how to treat Guantanamo detainees.

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit determined that Huzaifa Parhat, who has been detained in Guantanamo Bay for more than six years, is not an enemy combatant. The U.S. military was directed “to release Parhat, to transfer him or to hold a new proceeding in light of the appeals court’s ruling”.

Tuesday night, Derek Stoffel, host of CBC Radio’s “As It Happens” asked Parhat’s lawyer, Sabin Willett: “What’s your client’s reaction to this ruling?”

The unbelievable response:

Boy what a great question that is because my client doesn’t know about this ruling because I’m not allowed to tell him. […] He’s sitting in solitary confinement today. He has no idea what’s happened as far as I know.

Would you have believed eight years ago you would ever live to see the day when American justice was reduced to this?
I remember reading a story where someone was saying how they grew up listening to all of the horror stories about what was happening in the USSR, and in their side of Berlin. How people would be tortured, or shot just trying to escape to the west. How bad someone like Saddam Hussein was because he was torturing and killing innocent people. He looks at what is being done today in our names, not just by a few bad eggs, but actually sanctioned by the gov. To people who may be innocent. And wonders how kids in other countries will view us for generations to come. How our own will view us. The excuse of course is that we shouldn't talk about it. You'd think if they didn't want people talking about what we've done wrong, we'd just stop doing the wrong things. That seems to obvious though I guess.

This just goes against everything we claim to stand against, and sadly, is so commonplace at this point we don't even notice anymore, and worse, some will say it's ok just because someone uses the term terrorist.

Ship to nowhere (http://collateralnews.tv/index.php/collateral-news/5/149)
This week's story fits perfectly with what we've learned about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay: According to UK-based human rights organization 'Reprieve' the U.S. has used navy ships acting as prisons throughout the world. Some accounts indicate that the abuse suffered on these ships was worse than that suffered in Guantanamo.
Which points out that almost 80,000 people have been rendered through these systems. 80,000! And only a handful have been charged with anything, let alone even got a trial in the first place. This is just staggering.

[BoyBach]

Against it, however, I call as my main witness Mr. Malcolm Nance. Mr. Nance is not what you call a bleeding heart. In fact, speaking of the coronary area, he has said that, in battlefield conditions, he “would personally cut bin Laden’s heart out with a plastic M.R.E. spoon.” He was to the fore on September 11, 2001, dealing with the burning nightmare in the debris of the Pentagon. He has been involved with the sere program since 1997. He speaks Arabic and has been on al-Qaeda’s tail since the early 1990s. His most recent book, The Terrorists of Iraq, is a highly potent analysis both of the jihadist threat in Mesopotamia and of the ways in which we have made its life easier. I passed one of the most dramatic evenings of my life listening to his cold but enraged denunciation of the adoption of waterboarding by the United States. The argument goes like this:

1. Waterboarding is a deliberate torture technique and has been prosecuted as such by our judicial arm when perpetrated by others.

2. If we allow it and justify it, we cannot complain if it is employed in the future by other regimes on captive U.S. citizens. It is a method of putting American prisoners in harm’s way.

3. It may be a means of extracting information, but it is also a means of extracting junk information. (Mr. Nance told me that he had heard of someone’s being compelled to confess that he was a hermaphrodite. I later had an awful twinge while wondering if I myself could have been “dunked” this far.) To put it briefly, even the C.I.A. sources for the Washington Post story on waterboarding conceded that the information they got out of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was “not all of it reliable.” Just put a pencil line under that last phrase, or commit it to memory.

4. It opens a door that cannot be closed. Once you have posed the notorious “ticking bomb” question, and once you assume that you are in the right, what will you not do? Waterboarding not getting results fast enough? The terrorist’s clock still ticking? Well, then, bring on the thumbscrews and the pincers and the electrodes and the rack.

Believe Me, It's Torture. (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808?currentPage=1)


Torture has never been proven to work and is morally indefensible.

[hulugu]

This came out today, and while not a surprise in the least, it's interesting.

China Inspired Interrogations at Guantanamo. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/02detain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of “coercive management techniques” for possible use on prisoners, including “sleep deprivation,” “prolonged constraint,” and “exposure.”

What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.

I think it's long been acknowledged that many of the methods described in SERE training were imported to Guantanamo Bay, but that the link is so specific between Chinese torture methods of the Korean War and our current policies should drive the point home.

[skunk]

Of course the really wonderful advantage of waterboarding is that it tidies up all those loose ends: you pick somebody up - anybody, really, it doesn't matter, on any pretext - you accuse them of having done something heinous enough to justify being detained without trial and tortured, you waterboard them, they eventually confess whether they are guilty or not, and, presto, you have your circle completed. Make the crime fit the punishment, you might say.

[mactastic]

So it's torture when someone else does it to Americans, but not when Americans do it to someone else?

And I'M the moral relativist? :confused:

[hulugu]

So it's torture when someone else does it to Americans, but not when Americans do it to someone else?

And I'M the moral relativist? :confused:

Hey, you're finally getting it. We are the city of light, therefore when we do something it's for freedom and liberty. When the rest do it, it's wrong because they are evil.

It's not that hard.

[Macky-Mac]

It turns out that the US isn't the only country that's tortured Iraqis. In this case it was British soldiers doing the torture (and killing);

Iraqi torture victims slam UK 'contempt'
Father of Baha Musa says MoD views lives as cheap, as he flies in for talks over his son's death

Iraqi civilians who were tortured by British soldiers say the government is treating them with 'contempt' ahead of a potential multi-million-pound payout for the abuse they suffered.

The eight Iraqis arrived in London yesterday for this week's long-awaited mediation into how much compensation the government is willing to pay to civilians who were tortured while held in British custody. The eight accused the Ministry of Defence last night of trying to block them from attending the high-profile meeting.

The Iraqis will meet MoD lawyers on Wednesday inside the Treasury for negotiations presided over by the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, to determine a settlement which will include compensation for the death of Baha Musa.

The 26-year-old receptionist had suffered 93 identifiable injuries at the hands of British soldiers in Basra in September 2003. He had died after being subjected to 36 hours of beatings and abusive treatment, including being double-hooded with hessian sacks in stifling conditions....


link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/06/military.iraq)

[skunk]

No surprise there, I'm afraid. You don't have a monopoly on savagery and ill-discipline.

[solvs]

I didn't want to start a new thread.

Book Cites Secret Red Cross Report of C.I.A. Torture of Qaeda Captives (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/washington/11detain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

But Ashcroft defends waterboarding before House panel (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/ashcroft.waterboarding/index.html). We should try it on him. See how he likes it.

And I love this:

Terrorist Watch List Hits One Million Names (http://www.aclu.org/privacy/35968prs20080714.html)

Anyone still really believe this list is at all accurate?

[Iscariot]

Anyone still really believe this list is at all accurate?

I wonder if Satan is on that list. He lives in Fahlujah, you know.

P.S. you know the U.S. also does this to child soldiers, yes? You got some boys in Gitmo so long they're all grown up, now.

[solvs]

P.S. you know the U.S. also does this to child soldiers, yes? You got some boys in Gitmo so long they're all grown up, now.

Yeah, there was a video I saw the other day of a young teenager crying and talking about being tortured. I didn't want to post it, it's pretty disturbing, but it's easy to find if anyone really wants to. This is not the America I was taught we were supposed to be.

[Iscariot]

Yeah, there was a video I saw the other day of a young teenager crying and talking about being tortured. I didn't want to post it, it's pretty disturbing, but it's easy to find if anyone really wants to. This is not the America I was taught we were supposed to be.

Yeah, that's Omar Khadr. He's a Canadian, and he was 15 when he was apprehended.

No, my government isn't doing a damn thing. Yeah, I think they're just as guilty as if they were administering the beatings themselves.

[James17]

Yeah, that's Omar Khadr. He's a Canadian, and he was 15 when he was apprehended.

No, my government isn't doing a damn thing. Yeah, I think they're just as guilty as if they were administering the beatings themselves.

I would say he is the guilty one after bombing an American soldier. The video of him being interrogated on BBC News didn't show any cruel treatment, it was Canadian interrogators on that video who were speaking to him. It appears from his sobbing that he can't deal with the consequences of his actions.

[Iscariot]

I would say he is the guilty one after bombing an American soldier. The video of him being interrogated on BBC News didn't show any cruel treatment, it was Canadian interrogators on that video who were speaking to him. It appears from his sobbing that he can't deal with the consequences of his actions.



Yes, wanting a child to be given their rights to due process is totally the same as wanting him to go free. :rolleyes:

[és:]

It turns out that the US isn't the only country that's tortured Iraqis. In this case it was British soldiers doing the torture (and killing)

We know this. Not just in the case you highlighted either.

[James17]

Yes, wanting a child to be given their rights to due process is totally the same as wanting him to go free. :rolleyes:

It doesn't matter if he was a child or adult, a terrorist is a terrorist. He was trained in exactly the same way at them brainwash camps in Pakistan as it said in the BBC Article. If you can't face the consequences of your vile actions then don't carry them out, it's quite simple.

[skunk]

It doesn't matter if he was a child or adult, a terrorist is a terrorist. He was trained in exactly the same way at them brainwash camps in Pakistan as it said in the BBC Article. If you can't face the consequences of your vile actions then don't carry them out, it's quite simple.A fine example of the flagrant abuse of the term "terrorist". This person, if he was correctly accused, was fighting US troops, not civilians. Why call him a "terrorist"? He was a fighter, a fighter who was severely wounded. Besides that, he was a child. What purpose could possibly be served by imprisoning him in Guantanamo Bay and questioning him? What useful information could he possibly be in possession of?

[és:]

a terrorist is a terrorist.

Well, that really depends on which side you're on. as to how you look at it. Technically you're right though, a terrorist is a terrorist. It's just a shame that that people only apply that to other people instead of their own actions.

A lot of these 'terrorists' are not actually terrorists at all.

If you can't face the consequences of your vile actions then don't carry them out, it's quite simple.

That's why I want Bush and Blair to be tried at the Hague for war crimes.

[skunk]

It doesn't matter if he was a child or adult, a terrorist is a terrorist. He was trained in exactly the same way at them brainwash camps in Pakistan as it said in the BBC Article. If you can't face the consequences of your vile actions then don't carry them out, it's quite simple.Oh, it's simple, is it? Could you define "terrorist" in anything but a ludicrously circular fashion? US Marines are trained at their own "brainwash camps", so that clearly isn't a differentiating factor. He was allegedly fighting US troops, so "terrorism" doesn't enter into it, unless of course you are claiming that anybody fighting against you is a terrorist. I'm afraid you'll have to come up with something slightly more rigorous than "a terrorist is a terrorist".

[Iscariot]

If you can't face the consequences of your vile actions then don't carry them out, it's quite simple.

You are not giving him the chance to face the consequences of his actions. The consequences of his actions would be a fair trial and appropriate sentencing if he's guilty. He has been held fox six years now without a proper trial. That is not facing the consequences of his actions, that is a complete about-face on the very constitution that your country claims inspires it's actions.

[és:]

Oh, it's simple, is it? Could you define "terrorist" in anything but a ludicrously circular fashion? US Marines are trained at their own "brainwash camps", so that clearly isn't a differentiating factor. He was allegedly fighting US troops, so "terrorism" doesn't enter into it, unless of course you are claiming that anybody fighting against you is a terrorist. I'm afraid you'll have to come up with something slightly more rigorous than "a terrorist is a terrorist".

A terrorist is just someone that uses violence and/or intimidation for political gain.

Which means anyone but us. Them there is da terrwists. We is da freedum figtaz.

[James17]

Oh, it's simple, is it? Could you define "terrorist" in anything but a ludicrously circular fashion? US Marines are trained at their own "brainwash camps", so that clearly isn't a differentiating factor. He was allegedly fighting US troops, so "terrorism" doesn't enter into it, unless of course you are claiming that anybody fighting against you is a terrorist. I'm afraid you'll have to come up with something slightly more rigorous than "a terrorist is a terrorist".

Incase you don't agree with my informal use of the word "terrorist" then do click the link below, it will give you some definitions on the word. Clearly the boy was a member of Al-Qaeda fighting for a purpose, I don't know what else you need to know to consider to him being a terrorist. Not many people fighting against you in the street are in Al-Qaeda.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorist

[James17]

You are not giving him the chance to face the consequences of his actions. The consequences of his actions would be a fair trial and appropriate sentencing if he's guilty. He has been held fox six years now without a proper trial. That is not facing the consequences of his actions, that is a complete about-face on the very constitution that your country claims inspires it's actions.

It is clear from the video that he isn't coping with the interim custodial sentence in Guantanamo which is evident from the crying and pleas for help. The automatic consequences of being a terrorist in this case is being sent to Guantanamo so this is as a result of his actions. Whether it's humane or not it is still a consequence. His lawyer made sure the public knew about his client from secretly recording this video and he also tried to persuade Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to secure his release which he refused. His lawyer will be present at his trial and he has already started to bring media attention to the case. What is being forgotten is actually why he's at Guantanamo and from that video I don't see any harsh treatment as a result of murdering a soldier.

[James17]

Well, that really depends on which side you're on. as to how you look at it. Technically you're right though, a terrorist is a terrorist. It's just a shame that that people only apply that to other people instead of their own actions.

A lot of these 'terrorists' are not actually terrorists at all.



That's why I want Bush and Blair to be tried at the Hague for war crimes.

Actually, the article itself considered that boy to be a terrorist so it is not my personal attribute. The side I'm on is the side that recognizes the threat from these people and seeks justice. Your personal view about wanting Bush and Blair to be prosecuted is "astounding" at the very least but you are entitled to your opinion and I won't question that.

[Iscariot]

It is clear from the video that he isn't coping with the interim custodial sentence in Guantanamo which is evident from the crying and pleas for help. The automatic consequences of being a terrorist in this case is being sent to Guantanamo so this is as a result of his actions. Whether it's humane or not it is still a consequence. His lawyer made sure the public knew about his client from secretly recording this video and he also tried to persuade Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to secure his release which he refused. His lawyer will be present at his trial and he has already started to bring media attention to the case. What is being forgotten is actually why he's at Guantanamo and from that video I don't see any harsh treatment as a result of murdering a soldier.

So you would deny an individual (a minor no less) his rights based on murdering a soldier?

At first, they came for the terrorists, but because I was not a terrorist, I did not speak up...

[és:]

Actually, the article itself considered that boy to be a terrorist so it is not my personal attribute.

It doesn't matter what the article considers, it doesn't matter what you consider, it doesn't matter what I consider and it doesn't matter what the boy considers to be a terrorist. In your own words - a terrorist is a terrorist - and that is true no matter what.

I'm not saying if the boy was or wasn't a terrorist, I'm just saying that we can't call some people terrorists but forgive other people's terrorism.

The side I'm on is the side that recognizes the threat from these people and seeks justice.

I fully acknowledge their threat. I hate terrorists and murderers, the difference is that I don't cherry pick which terrorists to condemn.

Your personal view about wanting Bush and Blair to be prosecuted is "astounding" at the very least but you are entitled to your opinion and I won't question that.

In the interest of accuracy; I didn't say I wanted them prosecuted. I want them on trial at the Hague.

Why is it so astounding to you? I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't. Like I just said, you can't condemn one terrorist and ignore the other.

[skunk]

Incase you don't agree with my informal use of the word "terrorist" then do click the link below, it will give you some definitions on the word. Clearly the boy was a member of Al-Qaeda fighting for a purpose, I don't know what else you need to know to consider to him being a terrorist. Not many people fighting against you in the street are in Al-Qaeda.I am entirely familiar with the English language, thank you. You, however, have absolutely no evidence that he was either a "terrorist", which generally means a person using terror on a civilian population to achieve their ends rather than an armed man fighting an army in the streets, or a member of Al Qaeda. If he was a 15 year old boy succeeding in terrorising the US Army, he certainly had balls, but he was no terrorist.

So far, he has been held for six years without charge in an adult detention facility designed to be outside the rule of US law and largely out of reach of international monitoring agencies, by a US Administration which had no proper authorisation to invade Afghanistan in the first place. If you are going to be so absurd as to accuse him of "murdering" US troops, then by the same standards US troops are surely guilty of mass murder on an unprecedented scale.

[és:]

At first, they came for the terrorists, but because I was not a terrorist, I did not speak up...

A favourite poem of mine.

I'm not quite sure why you'd use it in that context though?

[James17]

So you would deny an individual (a minor no less) his rights based on murdering a soldier?

At first, they came for the terrorists, but because I was not a terrorist, I did not speak up...

According to the article, the evidence stacked against this boy was of great significance. I never said in my previous post that I would deny him his rights and I'm not saying that now. I believe that the threat against terrorism is developing rapidly and necessary measures must be taken to combat it and combat it in a humane and equal way. Even terrorists should be given human rights but I strongly feel that they should be given these to ensure fair justice. I believe that in this case the boy is being treated fairly which is shown from the video, he has a trial date set, he has legal representation and even his own prime minister refused to intervene which I believe is because of the evidence stacked against him.

[skunk]

If the evidence is so compelling, why has he been held without charge for SIX YEARS?

[Dont Hurt Me]

If the evidence is so compelling, why has he been held without charge for SIX YEARS?
Bingo, I smell Bushco spin. Its more about power,control and squashing our constitution then it is about this guys actions. This goes against everything America has stood for for 200 years. Innocent till proven guilty.

[James17]

It doesn't matter what the article considers, it doesn't matter what you consider, it doesn't matter what I consider and it doesn't matter what the boy considers to be a terrorist. In your own words - a terrorist is a terrorist - and that is true no matter what.

I'm not saying if the boy was or wasn't a terrorist, I'm just saying that we can't call some people terrorists but forgive other people's terrorism.



I fully acknowledge their threat. I hate terrorists and murderers, the difference is that I don't cherry pick which terrorists to condemn.

You are again going into your own view about Bush and Blair being terrorists. I am not here to discuss their decisions and legacy in Iraq. They will be answerable to that and you should contact them if you want answers. I am going by the consensus of the media and I suspect a wide number of opinion that that boy was a terrorist. I understand there will be people like you who will question who is and isn't a terrorist. I don't forgive anyone's terrorism, you are suggesting that because I don't have the same opinion of who is and isn't a terrorist as you. I also don't cherry pick which terrorists to condemn, I condemn the ones that I read about every day doing terrible things and no I don't consider them to be Bush and Blair as I think they are severely different to Al-Qaeda and other groups.

In the interest of accuracy; I didn't say I wanted them prosecuted. I want them on trial at the Hague.

Why is it so astounding to you? I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't. Like I just said, you can't condemn one terrorist and ignore the other.

To get on trial you have to be prosecuted so there is no need for your "interest in accuracy". You have that opinion of wanting them on trial and that's fine but I don't share it at all. It is astounding because I don't hear many people telling me they want Bush and Blair on trial for war crimes but then again that saying about there always being a minority springs to mind. It is your opinion that Bush and Blair are terrorists but not mine.

[és:]

If the evidence is so compelling, why has he been held without charge for SIX YEARS?

Oh, you know how these things go. Paperwork, doughnuts, paperwork, torture, paperwork, water boarding, paperwork, angry dogs, doughnuts, paperwork and before you know it 6 years have gone by.

Nah, only joking....





There was never any paperwork or doughnuts involved.

[James17]

I am entirely familiar with the English language, thank you. You, however, have absolutely no evidence that he was either a "terrorist", which generally means a person using terror on a civilian population to achieve their ends rather than an armed man fighting an army in the streets, or a member of Al Qaeda. If he was a 15 year old boy succeeding in terrorising the US Army, he certainly had balls, but he was no terrorist.

I don't need to justify what I read from a highly reputable media source. I never said it and never published it OK. He was deemed a terrorist so that's why I said it, nothing new. If you have problems about them calling the boy a terrorist then you should track the article down and make an official complaint to The BBC Corporation. I don't have any connection with the BBC, I am a reader and simply picked up on what they said.

So far, he has been held for six years without charge in an adult detention facility designed to be outside the rule of US law and largely out of reach of international monitoring agencies, by a US Administration which had no proper authorisation to invade Afghanistan in the first place. If you are going to be so absurd as to accuse him of "murdering" US troops, then by the same standards US troops are surely guilty of mass murder on an unprecedented scale.

I can see your opinion about the Bush Administration and his decisions on Iraq and Guantanamo but I don't have any connection with George Bush so I can't justify his actions. I don't share the view that the troops are guilty of mass murder as it isn't innocent people their killing or set out to be. I don't find it absurd saying he murdered a US troop as I read it straight from the media so again you need to question them as I didn't publish it. I suspect you are a US citizen - I am not so you should take your questions and queries about Bushes decisions on the war and Guantanamo and legal stance to your local politician or contact The White House directly. You can also exercise your view in the next election seen as America is a democracy. You will have a chance to show the government what you think of their decisions on the issues you say they didn't have authorization of.

[James17]

If the evidence is so compelling, why has he been held without charge for SIX YEARS?

The article and other ones I have read through don't mention why he has been kept for 6 years so I don't have an answer to that. Being a British citizen, it would be foolish of me to contact American Authorities and question why so maybe you or anyone else who wonders why should contact your government and ask.

[skunk]

You are again going into your own view about Bush and Blair being terrorists. I am not here to discuss their decisions and legacy in Iraq. They will be answerable to that and you should contact them if you want answers.Bush went into Iraq and Afghanistan using terror as a weapon. Creating "Shock and Awe" was the avowed purpose of the initial assaults by saturation bombing in Afghanistan and B52s over Baghdad. I am going by the consensus of the media and I suspect a wide number of opinion that that boy was a terrorist.So you are content to try and to convict this boy on the say-so of the media - who have no information save what they are fed by the US Administration (possibly a somewhat biased source) - and judging by the opinion of their uninformed readership. Quite a justice system you are building there.I understand there will be people like you who will question who is and isn't a terrorist.Evidently just as well, if the alternative is for those accused to be casually and uncritically convicted by those like yourself who seem uninterested in asking any questions at all.I also don't cherry pick which terrorists to condemn, I condemn the ones that I read about every day doing terrible things and no I don't consider them to be Bush and Blair as I think they are severely different to Al-Qaeda and other groups.Quite aside from your bland assumptions and jingoistic certainties based on nothing but government spin, you should possibly consider the undeniable facts that Bush and Blair have, by launching two unauthorised wars, caused the deaths of at least a hundred times as many innocent people as were killed on 9/11. If that is not exemplary punishment, I don't know what qualifies. I believe they should be tried for War Crimes, along with Rumsfeld, Cheney, Hoon and a few others.

[spork183]

At what point did our moral compasses get so out of whack that we debate the situations where torture is appropriate? There will always be the terrorists, the mass murders, those who practice genocide, etc.

Can a serious argument be made that lowering ourselves to a torture level is making any country safer? We know the other side is fixed in its ideology and will engage in behavior that we find reprehensible. If we counter with reprehensible behavior we perpetuate the cycle while giving further fodder to fuel the fires that drive the behavior we abhor.

The end does not justify the means. As an American, I regret that the world view of us (justified or not) has so drastically changed. We have gone from a country where the perception was we would try to do the right thing, to a country where the perception is we will serve our interests above all else and sacrifice rights on the alter of greed or political expediency.

I think electing a commander in chief who had never been outside the country prior to taking office, gave us a leader with little appreciation of the external world and no appreciation for other cultures.

[és:]

I am going by the consensus of the media and I suspect a wide number of opinion that that boy was a terrorist. I understand there will be people like you who will question who is and isn't a terrorist.

This is the whole point. I don't question who is a terrorist and who isn't (that is, in itself, cherry picking). "A terrorist is a terrorist", you said it yourself. From the Oxford English Dictionary a terrorist is a person that uses violence or intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

I condemn the ones that I read about every day doing terrible things

Well, I suggest you read Chomsky's manufacturing consent. If you're not reading about the terrible things we're doing every day, then there is a reason for it.

and no I don't consider them to be Bush and Blair as I think they are severely different to Al-Qaeda and other groups.

Of course they are, they've killed many more people than Al Qaeda. That's not to say I like Al Qaeda, I don't they are barbaric murderers and I hate them. It's just that they don't represent me and they don't kill innocent people in my name.

To get on trial you have to be prosecuted so there is no need for your "interest in accuracy".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole point of a trial is so you can be prosecuted.

What's the point of the trial? To prove somebody's innocence or to prove their guilt?

It is astounding because I don't hear many people telling me they want Bush and Blair on trial for war crimes but then again that saying about there always being a minority springs to mind.

Are you kidding! The entire Anti-war movement are saying it. Channel 4 did a program called 'the trial of Tony Blair'. This 'justice for your actions' isn't a new concept.

It is your opinion that Bush and Blair are terrorists but not mine.

It's not my opinion. Unless you're saying that they haven't used violence or intimidation for political gain?

I don't share the view that the troops are guilty of mass murder as it isn't innocent people their killing

This has got to be a joke, hasn't it? Over a million, I'll say that again, over a million people have died in Iraq.

as America is a democracy.

I'm happy to contest that in another thread.

[és:]

The article and other ones I have read through don't mention why he has been kept for 6 years so I don't have an answer to that.

Do you know much about places like Guantanamo bay and Abu Ghraib. Do you know much about Habeas corpus?

[és:]

At what point did our moral compasses get so out of whack that we debate the situations where torture is appropriate?

I think there are (a very few) cases where torture is justifiable.

As an American, I regret that the world view of us (justified or not) has so drastically changed. We have gone from a country where the perception was we would try to do the right thing, to a country where the perception is we will serve our interests above all else and sacrifice rights on the alter of greed or political expediency.

I think electing a commander in chief who had never been outside the country prior to taking office, gave us a leader with little appreciation of the external world and no appreciation for other cultures.

You are the type of American the world loves. If it wasn't for people like you, the good ol' fashion American citizen whom I love for their decency, I'd be shaking my head in condemnation at all things American.

What has happened to our two great countries that have bought so much to the world. We're now two of the most hated countries around. It's a shame because they don't represent us.

[skunk]

I think there are (a very few) cases where torture is justifiable.I do not.

[spork183]

I do not.

heartily agree. When we begin to justify a few cases, we broaden the definition of what is justifiable.

At first, we'll only torture those who have valuable information. Then we'll torture those who might have valuable information. Then those who might know someone with valuable information. Finally, just torture everyone because torture has become blase.

[és:]

I do not.

If someone planned to blow up a school and was withholding information and time was running down (yes, in a slightly jack bauerish scenario) then I could make a moral case for torturing the information out of him to save 300 kid's lives.

There are some other similar scenarios that I could think of, but not a huge amount.

[skunk]

If someone planned to blow up a school and was withholding information and time was running down (yes, in a slightly jack bauerish scenario) then I could make a moral case for torturing the information out of him to save 300 kid's lives.

There are some other similar scenarios that I could think of, but not a huge amount.Let me know when it happens, will you? I'll have a contract waiting.

[spork183]

how many people in Iraq now support the insurgency based sole on the negative press our torture has received? The citizens we wish to build democracy around are angered into silence and distrust of our methods. Please people, we're torturing to save you...

[és:]

Let me know when it happens, will you?

I did say it was slightly Jack Bauerish, but still, I stand by my point that there are a few occasions where it might be warranted.

[BoyBach]

...the undeniable facts that Bush and Blair have, by launching two unauthorised wars, caused the deaths of at least a hundred times as many innocent people as were killed on 9/11. If that is not exemplary punishment, I don't know what qualifies. I believe they should be tried for War Crimes, along with Rumsfeld, Cheney, Hoon and a few others.

(An atheistic) Amen.


I don't share the view that the troops are guilty of mass murder as it isn't innocent people their killing or set out to be.

I'd like to agree with you, but there have been too many occasions when the British and US military have indiscriminately murdered civilians.

"All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." - Voltaire.

[James17]

So you are content to try and to convict this boy on the say-so of the media - who have no information save what they are fed by the US Administration (possibly a somewhat biased source) - and judging by the opinion of their uninformed readership. Quite a justice system you are building there.

I have some important information about Omar Khadr, whether you believe it or not is up to you. Some of it is from the boys family so surely you can't dispute that?


He was captured in a bombed out compound in Afghanistan badly injured and near death
His lawyer is demanding the boy come home to Canada and face justice under canadian law which the Canadian Prime Minister has time and time again rejected and his position has unchanged after the release of the video
The Canadian Government believes this boy is in a legal process which must continue.
The Canadian Prime Minister has said he has received assurances from The White House that this boy is being treated humanely and he insists that these charges are very serious.
The Canadian Government maintains that the process is a judicial one and not political.
Public Opinion is strong on this case with someone posting on a news website "I see Khadr crying and whining about his physical state," says one of 600 e-mails received by Canada's public broadcaster, the CBC. "Let's not forget he has been accused of killing an American soldier. So truthfully, I don't feel sorry for him." and on the other side of the debate "Whatever his crime... he was a child when he was sent to Afghanistan to fight and at that young age could not have possibly understood the implications of what he was doing. He has suffered enough."
Members of this boys family have participated in TV interviews whilst showing clear signs of being Al-Qaeda sympathisers.
One of this boys late family members Ahmed Said Khadr, was an associate of al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and the family spent time living in some of his compounds. Several family members now reside in Toronto.
This boy's brother Abdullah Khadr is currently in prison in Canada awaiting extradition to the US on charges of gun-running and conspiracy to murder Americans abroad.


The family having close links with Al-Qaeda is horrifying and one of the brothers awaiting extradition on conspiracy to murder Americans is also shocking. I am not content on trying this boy with the say so of the media, I am content on him being tried with the evidence that suggests he was responsible for killing a soldier. It must be fairly incriminating if the Prime Minister of his home country is refusing to intervene. I don't have any issues or concern with The American Justice System as I don't reside there.

Evidently just as well, if the alternative is for those accused to be casually and uncritically convicted by those like yourself who seem uninterested in asking any questions at all.

This boy is not being casually and uncritically convicted. The evidence is stacked against him, all I see is his lawyer protesting about the imprisonment conditions, I don't see him denying or even touching on the offenses the boy committed. You must also be blaming his own country leader as he has asked questions but evidently has decided that as the evidence is stacked against him the wise move is not to intervene. I don't believe in convicting anyone of a crime without substantial incriminating evidence, something which I believe is present in this case and my view is shared by the Canadian Government.


Quite aside from your bland assumptions and jingoistic certainties based on nothing but government spin, you should possibly consider the undeniable facts that Bush and Blair have, by launching two unauthorised wars, caused the deaths of at least a hundred times as many innocent people as were killed on 9/11. If that is not exemplary punishment, I don't know what qualifies. I believe they should be tried for War Crimes, along with Rumsfeld, Cheney, Hoon and a few others.

I understand that you believe that but I will go no further than understanding it. It is not my view and I don't wish to debate on something I don't accept as it is opinion. All I can say is that all them people you want tried is "absolutely astounding" as I said in a previous post.

[skunk]

A little more information you may find illuminating, since you clearly do not know the first thing about this case:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080320.wcoessay0322/BNStory/specialComment/homeThe civilized world condemns the recruitment of child soldiers. Yet Canada sits quietly by as one of its citizens, Omar Khadr, is prosecuted by the United States for war crimes he allegedly committed at age 15 as a member of al-Qaeda.
It is impossible to square. Al-Qaeda's recruitment of child soldiers is immoral and abusive; consequently, it is immoral and abusive to prosecute as a war criminal a child recruited by al-Qaeda, and punish him accordingly. We can't have it both ways.
Lately, it has dawned on Canadians that the United States may well have lied about its evidence against Mr. Khadr. Far from having proof that only he could have thrown the grenade that killed their soldier, the U.S. appears to have hidden the truth: that the teenage Canadian was in the company of an adult al-Qaeda fighter and was himself unarmed, on his knees and facing away from battle when a U.S. soldier shot him twice — in the back.
But the falsehoods are only part of the reasons why Canadians let the 15-year-old disappear six years ago into the legal black hole of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in which he had no access to a lawyer for the first 27 months and no way to contest his detention. Canadians accepted that Mr. Khadr be held fully responsible for his actions. As if he were an adult.
The irony has never really penetrated Canadians' consciousness. Canada, the country of the liberal Youth Criminal Justice Act, is the only Western nation to give the United States carte blanche with one of its nationals at Guantanamo. Britain, Australia, Sweden and Germany fought to repatriate their nationals — adults, all of them. And Canada let a juvenile languish.
The reply from our government is but a single, vapid refrain: "Let the process work." But this is a process that, even apart from its other flaws, aims at punishing Omar Khadr for the accident of his birth in an al-Qaeda family.
When a young person raised in a terrorist family becomes a terrorist at 15, does he join voluntarily? Can he give free and informed consent? To say yes is to let al-Qaeda and Toronto's Khadr family off the hook for grooming children for terrorism. It puts the onus on the children to resist.Again I ask you, what purpose is served by holding this young man in legal limbo for six years without charge? Is this an appeal to hearts and minds, a mind-boggling cover-up, or plain, undirected and unvarnished revenge against a callow youth?

[és:]

I don't accept as it is opinion.

Which part don't you accept? That they should be on trial for war crimes or that they committed war crimes.

It doesn't really matter because you've stitched yourself up, no matter what the answer.

It's a fact that war crimes have been committed. If you don't want them to to be tried for it then why did you write this.

If you can't face the consequences of your vile actions then don't carry them out, it's quite simple.

Which takes me back to the cherry picking argument. How can you want one person to "face the consequences" but not the others.

All I can say is that all them people you want tried is "absolutely astounding" as I said in a previous post.

Why though? Why is it astounding to want people to be tried for their crime. Why do you want one boy to "face the consequences" but not the people that have carried out crimes in our name.

"There is no moral difference between a suicide bomber and a stealth bomber, both kill innocent people for political gain" - Tony Benn

[skunk]

More here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080313.wgitmokahdr0313/BNStory/specialComment
GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba — A U.S. military commander altered a report on a firefight in Afghanistan to cast blame for the death of a Delta Force commando on a Canadian youth who was captured after the shooting stopped, a defence lawyer said Thursday.
The lawyer, Navy Lieutenant-Commander William Kuebler, made the allegation at a pretrial hearing as he argued for access to the officer, identified only as “Col. W,” as well as details about interrogations that he said might help clear his client of war-crimes charges.
The U.S. military has charged Omar Khadr with murder for throwing a grenade that killed Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer during a U.S. military raid on July 27, 2002, on an al-Qaeda compound in eastern Afghanistan. Mr. Khadr's case is on track to be the first to go to trial under a military tribunal system at this U.S. Navy base in southeast Cuba.
The military commander's official report the day after the raid originally said the assailant who threw the grenade was killed, which would rule out Mr. Khadr as the suspect. But the report was revised months later, under the same date, to say a U.S. fighter had only “engaged” the assailant, according to Cdr. Kuebler, who said the later version was presented to him by prosecutors as an “updated” document.
Cmdr. Kuebler told reporters after the hearing that it appears “the government manufactured evidence to make it look like Omar was guilty.”
Prosecutors did not contest Cmdr. Kuebler's account in court and did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Mr. Khadr, who was captured when he was 15, is among roughly 80 detainees the Pentagon plans to prosecute at Guantanamo. So far, roughly a dozen of the 275 men held at Guantanamo have been charged with war crimes.
Cmdr. Kuebler said the trial will likely hinge on statements that Mr. Khadr made to interrogators when he was held at a military prison at Bagram air base in Afghanistan. The lawyer asked to be provided with the names of the interrogators as well as what techniques they used.
His interrogators included members of a unit implicated in the December 2002 beating deaths of two Afghan detainees, named Dilawar and Habibullah, Cmdr. Kuebler said.
Mr. Kuebler showed the judge a photograph of Mr. Khadr after his capture, with two gaping exit wounds in his chest from gunshots to his back, and said he would have been particularly vulnerable to coercion when he arrived at Bagram.
“We're not talking about an adult of able physical and mental condition,” he said.Please tell me, James17, how, even if he did throw a grenade when his compound was under attack by the US, this makes him guilty of a "war crime". If a foreign army attacks your camp, is the correct thing to do to give up without a fight?

[James17]

Well, I suggest you read Chomsky's manufacturing consent. If you're not reading about the terrible things we're doing every day, then there is a reason for it.

No thank-you. I read hundreds of stories everyday and try to get a broad balance on what we're doing wrong in certain areas but the power of myself is limited to what world leaders can do. I do my best to be a good citizen and do my best in society but there is a limit.

Of course they are, they've killed many more people than Al Qaeda. That's not to say I like Al Qaeda, I don't they are barbaric murderers and I hate them. It's just that they don't represent me and they don't kill innocent people in my name.

That's your personal opinion which I don't share and don't wish to question or expand on as a matter of differences in opinion.


Are you kidding! The entire Anti-war movement are saying it. Channel 4 did a program called 'the trial of Tony Blair'. This 'justice for your actions' isn't a new concept.

That's right, Anti-War movement. There are two sides to a story. It is obvious they will give their views that Tony Blair is to blame. I find it difficult to come to a decision on the war, I don't support nor condemn it.



It's not my opinion. Unless you're saying that they haven't used violence or intimidation for political gain?

What is it then a fact? That is ludicrous. I am not saying anything because I am not them and don't know the exact facts. They are justifiable for their actions, not me. If you believe they've used violence for political gain that's your prerogative.



This has got to be a joke, hasn't it? Over a million, I'll say that again, over a million people have died in Iraq.

Obviously I wouldn't joke about that as it isn't something to laugh about. There have been innocent civilians killed which is evident but I was saying the intention of the soldiers is to eradicate the militants and not innocent people.



I'm happy to contest that in another thread.

You're on your own. I am not an American Citizen but was simply showing the status of citizens participation as you can exercise your vote in what you believe in. My attribute to saying America is a democracy is supported within the dictionary. Again, people will question it but it isn't my opinion so they will not question me.

Dictionary Definition- Democracy,

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government:

[James17]

Do you know much about places like Guantanamo bay and Abu Ghraib. Do you know much about Habeas corpus?

I have covered the stories of these places very closely over time. I also paid close attention when there were British citizens held at Guantanamo Bay.

[és:]

That's your personal opinion which I don't share and don't wish to question or expand on as a matter of differences in opinion.

Firstly, it's not my opinion, it's a fact. Secondly, I'm not surprised you don't want to discuss it because you clearly don't know much about it.


What is it then a fact?

Yes. It is a proven fact.

I am not saying anything because I am not them and don't know the exact facts.

That's pretty clear, James.

If you believe they've used violence for political gain that's your prerogative.

I don't believe it, I know it. It's not a case of belief and denial. There is hours of video evidence that they have used violence for political gain. Have you been in a cave for the last 6 years, James?

For someone that reads 'hundreds' of stories a day, you don't seem to remember much. What are you reading, the beano?

There have been innocent civilians killed which is evident but I was saying the intention of the soldiers is to eradicate the militants and not innocent people.

B52 bombers don't have laser guided missiles, to my knowledge.

You're on your own. I am not an American Citizen but was simply showing the status of citizens participation as you can exercise your vote in what you believe in. My attribute to saying America is a democracy is supported within the dictionary. Again, people will question it but it isn't my opinion so they will not question me.

Dictionary Definition- Democracy,

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government:

Thank you for the definition. Like I said, I'm more than willing to argue the point in another thread.

[skunk]

There have been innocent civilians killed which is evident but I was saying the intention of the soldiers is to eradicate the militants and not innocent people.The exquisite irony of the fact that there were no militants until the Coalition of the Witless invaded their country and shot up their fellow citizens has clearly escaped you as much as it escaped our benighted leadership. Wake up.

[James17]

I'd like to agree with you, but there have been too many occasions when the British and US military have indiscriminately murdered civilians.

I accept there has been a lot of them occasions but I was just clarifying the main intention.

[és:]

benighted.

Oooh, nice word. Bravo.

[James17]

Which part don't you accept? That they should be on trial for war crimes or that they committed war crimes.

It doesn't really matter because you've stitched yourself up, no matter what the answer.

It's a fact that war crimes have been committed. If you don't want them to to be tried for it then why did you write this.



Which takes me back to the cherry picking argument. How can you want one person to "face the consequences" but not the others.


Why though? Why is it astounding to want people to be tried for their crime. Why do you want one boy to "face the consequences" but not the people that have carried out crimes in our name.

"There is no moral difference between a suicide bomber and a stealth bomber, both kill innocent people for political gain" - Tony Benn

I don't think their intentions were criminal in the war. I must also add that the public of both the UK and US both voted Blair and Bush back in, in elections after the war had began so I don't see any strong opposition from the public to it. They made decisions which had a negative impact but I am not convinced they are criminals.

[és:]

I don't think their intentions were criminal in the war.

I'm not really sure if it matters what their intentions were. I'm sure everything Hitler did he believed in.

so I don't see any strong opposition from the public to it.

You're kidding. There is huge opposition to it.

They made decisions which had a negative impact but I am not convinced they are criminals.

Well, they are. You being convinced of it really doesn't change international law.

It doesn't really matter because they won't be tried for it.

[James17]

Firstly, it's not my opinion, it's a fact. Secondly, I'm not surprised you don't want to discuss it because you clearly don't know much about it.




Yes. It is a proven fact.



That's pretty clear, James.



I don't believe it, I know it. It's not a case of belief and denial. There is hours of video evidence that they have used violence for political gain. Have you been in a cave for the last 6 years, James?

For someone that reads 'hundreds' of stories a day, you don't seem to remember much. What are you reading, the beano?



B52 bombers don't have laser guided missiles, to my knowledge.



Thank you for the definition. Like I said, I'm more than willing to argue the point in another thread.

It's also pretty clear that you sit here wanting leaders to be tried saying there is factual evidence for their "criminal actions". Can you explain to me anything you have participated in, in trying to achieve your goal of them being tried since it's so serious that they are responsible. Probably nothing so you can't feel that strongly or be serious about it. You are in no position to sit here with a mocking tone directed at me whilst you sit on a computer and put across these factual allegations. Go and protest on the street or file a lawsuit against Bush and Blair or even start up a group if you care so much.

[James17]

I'm not really sure if it matters what their intentions were. I'm sure everything Hitler did he believed in.



You're kidding. There is huge opposition to it.



Well, they are. You being convinced of it really doesn't change international law.

It doesn't really matter because they won't be tried for it.

I think it matters a great deal what their intentions were. They weren't intentions that were criminally motivated from the start as you imply. I was talking about the 2004 and 2005 elections. We will see public opinion in the next elections I'm sure. It is your opinion that they are criminals, that's all. Prosecutors have to prove intent in courts which goes back to my point that their intentions were not criminally motivated and you're telling me their intentions don't matter, amazing. It's one of the most important things in a case-intent.

[és:]

Can you explain to me anything you have participated in, in trying to achieve your goal of them being tried since it's so serious that they are responsible.

I can't uphold international law, that's a matter for the United Nations Security Council. All I can do, and have done, is campaign against what they did.

Probably nothing so you can't feel that strongly or be serious about it. You are in no position to sit here with a mocking tone directed at me whilst you sit on a computer and put across these factual allegations.

See, this is where you make yourself look like a fool for making silly assumptions with no foundation. I'm a long time member of the anti-war coalition. I've been to many marches and campaigned vigorously against the war and it's perpetrators.

Go and protest on the street or file a lawsuit against Bush and Blair or even start up a group if you care so much.

I can't file a lawsuit against Bush or Blair, so that's hardly the best suggestion. We did march in our millions to warn him of this bloody disaster, though.

[James17]

See, this is where you make yourself look like a fool for making silly assumptions with no foundation. I'm a long time member of the anti-war coalition. I've been to many marches and campaigned vigorously against the war and it's perpetrators.

I'm a fool, OK but see when or if you even protest do you ever think of the relevance or impact it will have on government decisions- none. Why do it then? I would say the people who waste their time are more foolish than me.

[és:]

I'm a fool, OK but see when or if you even protest do you ever think of the relevance or impact it will have on government decisions- none. Why do it then? I would say the people who waste their time are more foolish than me.


Why do I protest? Because it's my right to do so, as protected in article 20 of the universal deceleration of human rights (which something the US are in breach of).

You're like a dog backed into a corner. One minute you're asking why I'm not protesting and when you find out that I am, you're asking why I bother.

You've got no answer for why you want one person to face the consequences of their action but not others.

[BoyBach]

I'm a fool, OK but see when or if you even protest do you ever think of the relevance or impact it will have on government decisions- none. Why do it then? I would say the people who waste their time are more foolish than me.


That's one depressing attitude towards the democratic process you hold.

As an aside, if protests are so ineffective why did the government introduce a half mile protest-free zone around Parliament?

[James17]

Why do I protest? Because it's my right to do so, as protected in article 20 of the universal deceleration of human rights (which something the US are in breach of).

You're like a dog backed into a corner. One minute you're asking why I'm not protesting and when you find out that I am, you're asking why I bother.

You've got no answer for why you want one person to face the consequences of their action but not others.

Obviously it's your right to I am asking why do you actually do it, I don't see any results from it. Nothing you say or do will change what is happening. I think it is right that this young terrorist is prosecuted but I don't see the other side like you do about Bush and Blair.

[Iscariot]

A favourite poem of mine.

I'm not quite sure why you'd use it in that context though?

The poem is about the inaction of German intellectuals when the Nazis were stripping the rights from group after group. To me, the poem has always spoken about the dangers of allowing any group to have their rights trodden in the name of country or security.

According to the article, the evidence stacked against this boy was of great significance. I never said in my previous post that I would deny him his rights and I'm not saying that now.

I do believe I have already stated — but if I have not — the boy needs to be properly charged or tried, in either a criminal or international court, and afforded all the rights that one would come to expect with such a trial. If the evidence against him — or any other terrorist — is as strong as the U.S. government would claim, then there should be no reason not to try Khadr or those like him in court. We cannot allow suspension of due process in the name of any threat, for in doing so we become the cowards. All freedom is precious, and to be protected under any circumstance.

[James17]

That's one depressing attitude towards the democratic process you hold.

As an aside, if protests are so ineffective why did the government introduce a half mile protest-free zone around Parliament?

So people have the right and ability to do it but that still doesn't mean it's going to have an effect, does it?

I was at Westminster last week and there are still people who camp out in the cold because of the Iraq war, they should be allowed to do what they like I am not talking about that but they are wasting their time when you think on it. The UK government has moved on from decisions on the war, Gordon Brown has just promised more troops and refused to give a timetable of when he will withdraw them all. These protesters are being ignored.

[és:]

Obviously it's your right to I am asking why do you actually do it, I don't see any results from it. Nothing you say or do will change what is happening.

But it is changing what's happening. Opinion is changing, which means votes are changing and that means policy will change.

I think it is right that this young terrorist is prosecuted but I don't see the other side like you do about Bush and Blair.

Yeah, I got that. What Bush and Blair has done is massively worse than what this boy has done. The waged and illegal war that cost over a million innocent lives and they did it on a pack of lies.

"Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist. You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor." - A pirate, from St. Augustine's "City of God"

"One does not create a human society on mounds of corpses." - Louis Lecoin

[és:]

The poem is about the inaction of German intellectuals when the Nazis were stripping the rights from group after group. To me, the poem has always spoken about the dangers of allowing any group to have their rights trodden in the name of country or security.

And what a truly wonderful poem it is. I just didn't really make the connection with 'Terrorist' and 'untried suspect', which I think would have got the point across. My fault, not yours.

[it5five]

I would say he is the guilty one after bombing an American soldier.

So let me get this straight:

1. A country invades a sovereign nation on false pretenses.
2. The citizens of said country fight off the invading force.
3. The invading force imprisons the resistance movement and claims they are "terrorists", simply because they were defending themselves and their country against an army responsible for murdering over half a million of their countrymen.

This doesn't make sense to me. It's like kicking a bee hive, getting stung the bees inhabiting the hive, and then calling for the destruction of all bees because you got stung. You're not taking into account that the aggressors here, the United States and the UK, are the ones that instigated this, and are simply feeling the repercussions for their actions.

[skunk]

I'm still waiting for any sign that our erudite Scottish friend has bothered to read either of the excerpts I posted (among the hundreds he reads every day) or that he has any cogent answer to the points they contain - or to anything else, for that matter.

[James17]

I'm still waiting for any sign that our erudite Scottish friend has bothered to read either of the excerpts I posted (among the hundreds he reads every day) or that he has any cogent answer to the points they contain - or to anything else, for that matter.

I should make you wait forever for your annoying yet mocking sarcasm.

The article you provide named "Omar Khadr: A most peculiar young offender" and the article you provide named "U.S. altered evidence in Khadr case: lawyers" both raise some very valid and serious issues that I wish to expand on.

*There is a suggestion that the US has lied about its evidence which incriminates Omar Khadr. All the article says it "Lately, it has dawned on Canadians" and doesn't provide the source of this allegation so I can't make a judgement on that but let me assure you that if the US had done this, it would be grossly unacceptable and the person responsible should be severely disciplined, then, this development should be brought to the attention of the judge in his future trial, the US Department Of State would also expectedly be liable for damages in a situation of this sort. I believe in a fair trial in every case which false evidence goes strongly against.

* I understand that his family were terrorist minded driven which is clear from his other family members' involvement within Al-Qaeda- their continued visits to Afghanistan and Pakistan whilst staying with Osama Bin Laden, Omar's father continually meeting senior Al-Qaeda leaders and finally I believe Khadr visited training camps and guest houses alongside his father. This family involvement expanded when Abdul Karim, a younger brother, was paralyzed in battle in Pakistan in 2004 and now the oldest brother Abdullah faces extradition from Toronto to the United States on terrorism related charges. I also understand that in an interview with CBC in 2003/2004, certain family members were showing clear signs of sympathy towards Al-Qaeda and promoting it. I accept that if all of this evidence is true, he grew up in a family that promoted and educated their children in such a way that they would become terrorists which is exactly what happened, however, I believe that this is a plot by Al-Qaeda to train and put "child soldiers" on the front line to prevent prosecution. There is no simple solution to such a complex case in light of all of this evidence but I believe that the family members responsible for "brainwashing" and "criminally educating" their child should be brought to justice. I also believe that Omar Khadr should receive psychiatric treatment as if all of this evidence is true, he will still be in a frame of mind that promotes killing innocent people. I believe this treatment should be under a secure order which prohibits his release until there are signs of success as a result of rehabilitation. I also believe that if the signs of success are shown and he is released, he should be subject to a surveillance order for life which will ensure his own safety incase anyone around him tries to get him involved in anything terrorist related and also to protect the public as he did commit acts of terrorist although not through his fault completely. I also accept the point from the US Department Of State that not punishing Khadr would "further incentivize" Al-Qaeda in recruiting young people as a means of avoiding prosecution as I mentioned earlier which is why in such a difficult situation, secure orders may be the best possible option for this young persons future.

I also read the second article you provided which is regarding the allegation of the US inventing incriminating evidence. I touched on this point earlier in my observations. All the above observations and possible solutions are based on the fact that all of the evidence I read from those articles is fully true. I must also make the observation that after reading these articles, it appears that the person writing them is extremely biased towards Omar Khadr.

[skunk]

Thank you for your reply.

[Iscariot]

And what a truly wonderful poem it is. I just didn't really make the connection with 'Terrorist' and 'untried suspect', which I think would have got the point across. My fault, not yours.

Probably more applicable to the situation. I was trying to drive the point that we must protect the rights of everyone, regardless of what they have done or why they have done it; so I can see how it could have been fuzzy.

*There is a suggestion that the US has lied about its evidence which incriminates Omar Khadr.

* I understand that his family were terrorist minded driven which is clear from his other family members' involvement within Al-Qaeda- their continued visits to Afghanistan and Pakistan whilst staying with Osama Bin Laden, Omar's father continually meeting senior Al-Qaeda leaders and finally I believe Khadr visited training camps and guest houses alongside his father.

All of this would come to light in a fair trial. All of it will remain pure speculation as long as we allow a man to be denied his most basic rights, as afforded to him by the American constitution and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. It does not matter if Khadr is guilty, he still deserves just treatment, and six years of incarceration without significant trial is not just, it is criminal.