Murdered Detainees

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mactastic, May 9, 2009.

  1. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #1
    Title of the article "The Bush Administration Homicides". However, this is what so-called torture-lite leads to:
    When you tell people that the gloves are coming off, this is what ends up happening.

    Proponents of torture like to focus on the technique of waterboarding, and declare that it is a harmless form of persuasion; something akin to having your head dunked in water, or a fraternity prank. I'd like to focus on a particular part of this article in response to those who think waterboarding is only a mild interrogation enhancement technique:
    If waterboarding doesn't present any physical threat to a person, why would aggressive medical intervention become necessary? Why would an emergency tracheotomy be necessary? That's a pretty extreme medical procedure, only used in cases where the patient's life is in immediate danger; but if waterboarding someone is harmless, why would it even be necessary?

    I suspect we all know the answers.

    However, as this article details, waterboarding was only one of the authorized techniques. "Walling", along with confinement in small containers -- with or without insects the detainee was told were poisonous, prolonged sleep deprivation, "stress positions" (a euphemism for prolonged restraint in painful positions), long periods of standing, forced physical exhaustion, and other techniques were authorized for use on detainees.

    It goes without saying that when you allow people to perform those kinds of acts, some will take things a little further. Hyperthermia and hypothermia were employed. Severe beatings. At least one detainee was stuffed into a sleeping bag and beaten to death. At least one was summarily executed in the field.

    And to date, there are only a few people in prison for this, mostly related to the Abu Ghraib scandal; in which was obviously deemed necessary to hang "a few bad apples" out to dry because the evidence was too graphic.

    And one wonders why the CIA destroyed all the video they shot of "enhanced" interrogations. If they had nothing to worry about, why destroy those videos? Of course, they did have something to worry about; and didn't want those videos to ever surface in a courtroom.
     
  2. TuffLuffJimmy macrumors G3

    TuffLuffJimmy

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #2
    If I recall correctly GW never killed any Iraqis himself, nor did Obama kill any Afghans, nor did Hitler kill any jews.
     
  3. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    I never claimed that any of those were the case.
     
  4. xUKHCx Administrator emeritus

    xUKHCx

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Location:
    The Kop
    #4
    Thread reopened. Again please play nice and try and discuss the topic.
     
  5. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    I would also wonder, if waterboarding is so effective and such a mild technique, why it's proponents don't advocate for it's use by police departments across the nation? What if you've got a kidnapping suspect in custody and he knows where his accomplice is holding the victim? Why would you not demand that the police waterboard that person in order to get the information?

    If it's effecting and harmless, why not expand it's use?
     
  6. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #6
    Suddenly I feel much less neutral on Obama's choice not to prosecute the people that made this possible.
     
  7. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #7
    Perhaps he chooses to keep his eye on the ball, and not be side-tracked by issues not of his making?
     
  8. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #8
    Probably because the people of this country are protected under our laws, while people captured trying to kill us abroad aren't.

    I am so tired of hearing about this crap, I really wish the media would move to another subject. Furthermore if I was a general I would be giving orders to kill any enemy combatants encountered on the field, they don't need anymore bad press trying to get information to save other Americans.
     
  9. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #9
    I see no problem with sleep depraving some one and I believe it is considered a valid, nor is hosing them down with cold water making them cold and uncomfortable.

    Never life treating nor do you feel life threating like water boarding. You can reduce there food intact to what is needed to keep some one healthy and it does not have to taste very good.

    But the depriving them of sleep and making then uncomfortable is a way to break some one metal control and have it more likely that they will slip so to speak.
     
  10. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #10
    Many of these people are on a religious mission, would you rather talk to the enemy and go to hell or resist the enemy and go to heaven? Even if what we did were to be considered torture, that is nothing compared to what these people probably imagine hell to be like for eternity.
     
  11. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    There's a difference between depriving someone of sleep for a couple of days, and depriving them of sleep for a week or more. Obviously most of us have been up for 48 or more hours at some point, and are still reasonably functional. But beyond that it definitely gets dicey. Without drugs involved other than caffeine, I've been up for just over 80 continuous hours, and I'd have to say I was getting to the point where rational thought was becoming difficult. If that got pushed out to 200 hours, I could see some real problems starting to crop up. Although not life threatening in isolation, when you combine sleep deprivation with other "enhanced techniques", such as stress positions, or extreme confinement, it could potentially become lethal, particularly to someone with any kind of underlying health issues.

    Short-term sleep deprivation on it's own probably doesn't constitute torture, but it's extended application, particularly when combined with other techniques, certainly would. The problem is, minor amounts of sleep deprivation probably won't get you the desired results; and in order to obtain those you would have to go to extreme lengths of sleep deprivation.

    And on it's own, hosing someone down with cold water isn't all that bad, particularly if you're in Cuba. But if the temperature in the cell is below 50 degrees Fahrenheit, hosing someone down with cold water will induce hypothermia -- which is most definitely a life threatening condition.
     
  12. Peace macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #12
    This might be of interest to this topic.

    http://newsdaily.com/stories/tre54a4wu-us-libya-prisoner-death/

    A Libyan Islamist whose fabricated testimony about al Qaeda was used by the United States to justify its 2003 invasion of Iraq has killed himself in his Libyan jail cell, a Libyan newspaper reported on Monday.


    Human rights groups in the West demanded an immediate investigation into the death of Ali Mohamed Abdelaziz al Fakhiri, 46, also known as Ibn Sheikh al-Libi and a key figure in U.S. intelligence reports on al Qaeda before the war.
     
  13. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #13
    No, but as has been pointed out repeatedly to you, they are protected under international laws we've not only signed on to, but helped write, whether they've signed on or not.

    I'm amazed that anyone could actually say such a thing and expect to be taken seriously, but here we are.

    It should be your duty as an American to care about this subject, and want to know more about what our gov has done in our name.

    I don't even know where to begin with this ridiculous statement other than to simply assume you don't get it.

    This simply astounds me, but you never responded to the last couple of times I've refuted you guys, so it shouldn't.

    It's not his decision to make. Laws were violated here, and for less than ethical reasons. It's up to the Justice Department and an independent investigation to go after those who may be responsible and gather the evidence as to who did or authorized what.

    Just because some are belly aching because they don't care or cry partisan doesn't change that.
     
  14. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #14
    Once again, show me anyone who has been incarcerated or even brought to trial for the illegality of our actions. If this was so blatantly illegal we would have people answering to it. In fact I don't think the law even applied to terrorist detainees at the time we performed these actions.

    They drone on and on about the same subject, I don't see a problem with waterboarding prisoners if traditional interrogations don't work.

    Oh I get it, these people are captured as high value targets because they have INFORMATION, if we have no means of extracting said information we would have killed them on the battlefield.
     
  15. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #15
    He's advocating a war crime. But, of course, since he advocates torture, I'm not surprised he would advocate additional war crimes.
     
  16. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #16
    Its not a war crime to shoot people that are shooting at you instead of attempting a capture. There have been purposeful efforts to capture targets that mean to do us harm, if we can't extract information there really isn't any point and it would probably be better to blow the building/area instead of putting soldiers in harms way.
     
  17. remmy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    #17
    Maybe, but considering the amount of time they have missed and blown up civilians.

    Anyway this topic is missing the point.

    Prisoners died while under the responsibility of the US as prisoners due to torture or poor treatment, and that very little has been done.
     
  18. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #18
    That's actually not a patently bad idea, especially in a case of life or death. If a terrorist had, for example, kidnapped one of my family members, I wouldn't be against torturing the terrorist in order to find out where he was being held. I would care a whole lot less about whether the information he gave up was useable in court than I would care about getting my family member back.

    It's less about them being from another country and more about them being unlawful combatants - see below.

    The Geneva Conventions do not protect unlawful combatants, unless the detaining State chooses to offer them POW status. I'm aware that their status as unlawful combatants is disputed by some, but the U.S. Government sees them as such and is detaining them as such.
     
  19. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #19
    You have got to be kidding me. I've heard some ridiculous defenses before, but this one takes the cake. I'm sure you think Nixon and OJ were innocent too right? The fact that our opposition is too cowardly to do what's right and even open an independent counsel to look into it like they should under the law, possibly because they might also be partly culpable, doesn't mean there's no crime here. This shouldn't be a political or partisan issue, but it's become one. Anyone familiar with the failings of our system at times knows that. For you to actually say there is no crime because no one has been prosecuted, possibly yet, simply amazes me. They've only just begun, and have immense pressure to not pursue anything.

    This is like saying someone punched you, but ran away and the police never caught him, so there was no crime. You still have a shiner. Astounding. Simply astounding.

    The law applies to everyone. EVERYONE! How do you people still not get that?

    This is getting tiresome. They were working. Torture doesn't. As we now know, they probably even knew that and pursued it because they weren't getting the answers they wanted to regarding Iraq. They were getting the info they needed using other techniques that actually works. Once they started torturing (not just waterboarding) they clammed up. Which is why they kept torturing them. There was no ticking time bomb either.

    Seriously people, this info is all out there for anyone to read. We've been covering this for a while now. Please do your research before entering into this argument, because your lack of knowledge on the subject is showing badly.

    Except for the ones who were mistaken identities (some of whom we've already released). Or the ones who were given to us by warlords. Or given to us for money. And again, we did have other means to get info from them. Ways that actually worked, and didn't send our people on wild goose chases.

    What, you think there's no other way to interrogate than torture? Seriously? Right from battlefield to torture, or death? At least I know where you're coming from now and why you're so, shall we say... misinformed. No, it doesn't work like that. Again, go read up on this from the actual testimony being given right now, then get back to us.

    I have no idea where you're going with this, but I suggest you take a step back and think real hard on what your point may be.

    What if he didn't have your family after all? Or he did, and he just had to wait it out/give fake info until they were dead? Or he did, and torturing him just made him hate you more to where he didn't tell you anything? What if there were better ways to get info that actually worked, AND in less time? Well there are. And we did use them. And they worked. Torture didn't. Besides, what happens when later he does get off, even if your family member didn't survive, because he could easily prove any info gotten was coerced? Would you still be ok with it?

    I think you've been watching too much "24", and not enough of the actual testimony being given right now regarding this that proves what I've said and blows apart all of your arguments.

    First of all, there are more laws out there than the Geneva Convention. Second, some of them were actually protected under the Geneva Convention. Third, what the heck is wrong with us if we condemn others for such things, but have no problem doing it ourselves because of a loophole? How does that make us morally or ethically better? This goes against everything this country stands for. No matter what we decide to call them, these are people, and as our Founding Fathers pointed out repeatedly, we don't do this to anybody. ANYBODY! We are a nation of laws, of rules. We give everyone rights, or no one gets them. Because who decides who gets them and who doesn't? The Executive office has to live by the rule of law just as anyone else does. They don't get to decide who gets rights and who doesn't. They don't get to redefine the law that way. They follow the law, and in this case, they didn't. They did something illegal, and worse, against what the country is supposed to stand for, and deserve to be punished for it, lest future gens think it's ok, or even that we thought it was ok. We don't give up liberty for the perception of temporary safety. At the cost of rights for others.

    We don't ****ing torture! Anybody. NO. MATTER. WHAT.


    End of discussion...
     
  20. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #20
    This is out in the news, every other country knows about it, we have photos, videos, memos etc, they have plenty of evidence to prosecute, its not anything like someone punching me and running away.

    Our constitution extends itself to the treaties we sign, the geneva convention did not protect these people to my knowledge (or at least to any article in the convention that I could find, I looked in article 4 from a prior thread that was brought up about waterboarding).

    They weren't working, Obama even acknowledged that we received critical info from our practices even though he thought there were better ways to do it. So far I haven't heard of the better ways yet.

    Any cases of high level terrorists giving up information without using anything but standard interrogation techniques? I am curious.

    We didn't start right into EITs, we used standard interrogation techniques until they were exhausted and did not work.

    Its a tactical advantage to have enemy information, if we aren't allowed to use EITs when SITs consistently fail we have no way of extracting information and so there is no reason to put American life in harms way.


    I don't consider waterboarding torture.
     
  21. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #21
    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200702u/bowden-interview
    So yes...

    People have died as a result of water boarding so yes its torture.
     
  22. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #22
    Your reasoning is that it's not illegal since we have yet to prosecute anyone. There are so many things wrong with this premise, which I've already mentioned, I was just trying to simplify it with an example. You still haven't answered me though. If the person isn't prosecuted, is there still a crime? And better, do you not have any patience to allow for time for a trial. This is just being discussed, and you're already ready to acquit because no one has been charged yet. You don't see the faulty reasoning(s)?

    Your knowledge is limited, as, again, it's more than just Geneva. And who's to say who gets what rights? Some of these people we picked up were citizens of fellow International Law signers, and they were all people. No matter how bad they were, you seem to forget that part.

    We don't toss our laws, nor our ethics, aside because we're scared of some bad people, no matter how bad.

    Then you haven't been paying attention, because everything I've read says the opposite. That other things did work, but torture didn't. You can't come up with any proof it did, vs. the magnitude of proof it didn't, minus a few things that have since been recanted or disproved. Like what Lindsey Graham was trying to point to during the testimony that was quickly dismissed by the expert testifying. Obama was wrong.

     
  23. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #23
    I am willing to leave it open until proven to be illegal and someone is prosecuted. I have not seen anything produced that would show me this was an illegal action at the time it was performed.

    You say we have signed onto other treaties besides the geneva convention that would protect these people, which ones? Because as far as I am concerned the Geneva convention did not apply. I am once again curious.

    "According to a previously classified May 30, 2005, Justice Department memo that the Obama administration released last week, before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”

    After the "enhanced techniques," which the agency used on him 183 times, KSM -- the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks -- told investigators about a "second wave" of terrorists from East Asia who planned to crash a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles.

    After he was subjected to the waterboarding technique, wrote Conservative News Service's Terence P. Jeffrey,"KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key Al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles."

    The Justice Department memo concluded:
    In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including KSM and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques. ... [They] had expressed their belief that the general U.S. population was "weak," lacked resilience, and would be unable to "do what was necessary to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals.""

    We don't have to follow any laws that we have not extended the constitution towards, until these "laws" are produced protecting this class of people I am still wondering where these laws are. If these were American citizens you might have a point, they aren't. If they were protected under some treaty that we had extended ourselves to it would also be unlawful if waterboarding was defined as torture in such a document. I have yet to see it.
     
  24. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #24
    And I suppose that's why we've already found Osama bin Laden - because non-torture techniques gave him up? Oh, wait...

    I would be more okay with knowing that the authorities did everything they could to save the innocents, even at the expense of the guilty. I'd never live it down if I felt like something else could have been done, but wasn't. So YES, I would still be okay with it.

    Nope, never seen it. Just because we disagree doesn't mean I'm not informed.

    If you're finished discussing, then you can be excused. We don't all agree with you. I don't believe the law was broken. I don't believe this has anything to do with taking a moral high ground. I think this is about protecting the U.S., its people, and its interests, and I believe it has been done within the bounds of international law.
     
  25. remmy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    #25
    So telling, kill thousands for the interests of a few.

    Within bounds of international law? Because high ranking US politicians and officials are above the law?
     

Share This Page