NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/6260/1/245/


ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero released the memo Dec. 20 in New York. That document, a December 2003 FBI internal e-mail, suggests that Bush issued a secret Executive Order authorizing the use of extreme coercive measures in interrogation, including sleep deprivation, stress positions, attack dogs, and use of hoods to intimidate prisoners. The Geneva Convention Against Torture bans all of these practices.


Well now! Not surprising why they would resist releasing it until rights groups invoke FOIA to get it!

What's wrong with sleep deprivation and hoods?

Sleep Deprivation is inhumane, and what they do WHILE the hoods are on makes it illegal, plus, they haven't even denied putting hoods on people at Guantanimo, then putting them on a table, and filling the hood with water to simulate drowning.

This doesn't look like a very professional website though.

George Bush is one of the best presidents we have ever had. He never does anything that would not honor God.

There has to be some way to extract information. Sleep deprivation seems like the most humane way to go.

George Bush is one of the best presidents we have ever had. He never does anything that would not honor God.
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

George Bush is one of the best presidents we have ever had. He never does anything that would not honor God.
How wonderful.
So *that* would explain why minorties are being persecuted!
Because God said so!

He never does anything that would not honor God.

I'll bite.

So how does choking on a pretzel honour God?

I'll bite.

So how does choking on a pretzel honour God?
Well it almost killed bush. That's a start.

George Bush is one of the best presidents we have ever had. He never does anything that would not honor God.

er...u actually believe that??? he doesnt really care about not honouring God he went to war twice and God doenst like blood shed does he? Bush only acts religious to get votes.

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/6260/1/245/



Well now! Not surprising why they would resist releasing it until rights groups invoke FOIA to get it!

If there were a document that showed with reasonable credibility that Bush(or even a igh level flunkie like Rumsfeld) issued such an order that the FOIA would even be enough to produce it?

The best they could get was a hint. If that.

Those methods of interrogation aren't torture. They are widely used by Western nations in wartime, which of course doesn't make it okay, but does put it into perspective. (however I don't have sources ready to back this claim up, I'm sure someone else will though, as I'm going to have to log off and study :mad: )
I don't really approve of them, but I can somewhat accept them as necessary in wartime situations.

Ever seen those awful videos of Saddam's interrogation "techniques"? :(

Well it almost killed bush. That's a start.

Yeah, I guess. I do find the idea of drunk driving for the greater glory of God quite an entertaining conept.

Yeah, I guess. I do find the idea of drunk driving for the greater glory of God quite an entertaining conept.
Or cocaine abuse for christ!

Or cocaine abuse for christ!
Hee...
Crack for Christ!!

What's wrong with sleep deprivation and hoods?


The Geneva Convention Against Torture:

"For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Anyone know if the US ratified this convention or not?

The Geneva Convention Against Torture:

"For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Anyone know if the US ratified this convention or not?
I don't know if we ratified it, but can sleep deprivation be considered severe pain or suffering?

Uggh...liberals. Always making up stuff about Bush to discredit him. True he did abuse substances, but he doesn't anymore, am I correct? Yes, I am. Also, can you give me a credible source like ABC, NBC, CBS(wait, cross CBS out.), CNN, or Fox News?

Uggh...liberals. Always making up stuff about Bush to discredit him. True he did abuse substances, but he doesn't anymore, am I correct? Yes, I am. Also, can you give me a credible source like ABC, NBC, CBS(wait, cross CBS out.), CNN, or Fox News?
Vote Bush! He's not a drunken crackhead anymore!

Vote Bush! He's not a drunken crackhead anymore!So, instead of looking at the many good things Bush has done, you look at the few bad things. Yes, that was a huge mistake of Bush to abuse substances, but don't we all make mistakes? At least he stopped, unlike some. Also, I don't think Kerry wants liberals to continue making up crap about Bush and try to unite with conservatives. I'm willing to unite with you, as I am a conservative, but that will be pointless unless you are also willing to unite.

I know Bush made a mistake in his reasons to go to Iraq, but I still think that it was good for the world overall.

Plus, he was arrested for drunk driving in 1976. Does anyone know how hard it was to be arrested for drunk driving in 1976, especially if your surname was Bush?

Plus, he was arrested for drunk driving in 1976. Does anyone know how hard it was to be arrested for drunk driving in 1976, especially if your surname was Bush?

I think he was the only one that ever tried. :p

Fox News? Since When is this credible?!
They actually had the audacity to put someone from the Christian News on there news program as one of their "experts". Where as CNN put a Catholic Church, atheist, Jewish, and Political expert.

I don't know if we ratified it, but can sleep deprivation be considered severe pain or suffering?

The whole point of sleep deprivation is to cause suffering, thus encouraging the prisoner to spill the beans so that they are allowed to sleep and thus their suffering to end, no?

Lets just stop using partisan politics against each other, okay everyone?

Politically minded individuals focusing on their parties faults and correcting them instead of focusing on the other parties faults and trying to show the world why this makes them the better party.

There are more positive pursuits then Bush bashing and probably some of them will accomplish more then just preaching to the choir and getting into fights with the right that believe he is right.

Fox News? Since When is this credible?!
They actually had the audacity to put someone from the Christian News on there news program as one of their "experts". Where as CNN put a Catholic Church, atheist, Jewish, and Political expert.
Um...I think Fox is a better source than CBS, because Fox didn't make false reports.

Sleep deprivation has always been considered a form of mental torture. The chinese were very good at this. They would restrain you and have a drop of water constantly falling on your head so you can never sleep. After a few days you would go crazy and agree to tell them anything in order for them to let you sleep. Thats precisely the problem with torture, it promotes misinformation. Suppose you know nothing that would interest your torturers but every time you tell them something they want to hear they stop torturing you momentarily. What does a logical person do? He makes stuff up all the time to stop the torture.

The USA has taken this ancient chinese torture method to new heights, employing attack dogs, light, noise, and fear to keep people from sleeping. Personally I think the Chinese method is cheaper and more efficient, but neither method works unless your goal is to drive the person insane.

Lets just stop using partisan politics against each other, okay everyone?


Uggh...liberals.

.

So, instead of looking at the many good things Bush has done, you look at the few bad things. Yes, that was a huge mistake of Bush to abuse substances, but don't we all make mistakes? At least he stopped, unlike some. Also, I don't think Kerry wants liberals to continue making up crap about Bush and try to unite with conservatives. I'm willing to unite with you, as I am a conservative, but that will be pointless unless you are also willing to unite.
Actually I think most of what Bush has done has been bad. He's incompetant.
1 Started an unneccesary war in Iraq
2 Diverted assets from the war on Al Quaeda to fight in Iraq
3 Increased the budget deficit dramatically
4 Violated the establishment clause of the constitution by funding religious institutions
5 Weakened environmental law to the point that it may as well not be there
6 Alienated us from much of the world


This guy's not presidential material. I wouldn't trust him to scrub my toilet.

Um...I think Fox is a better source than CBS, because Fox didn't make false reports.
Where did CBS come from? He compared Fox and CNN, I believe...

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/6260/1/245/



Well now! Not surprising why they would resist releasing it until rights groups invoke FOIA to get it!

Sorry, but the word "Duh!" comes to mind. If you actually pay attention, this sorta becomes common knowlege.

I know Bush made a mistake in his reasons to go to Iraq, but I still think that it was good for the world overall.
How is a pointless war that destabilizes the world's oil supply and gives the world an impression of America as bloodthirsty warmongers good?

The whole point of sleep deprivation is to cause suffering, thus encouraging the prisoner to spill the beans so that they are allowed to sleep and thus their suffering to end, no?
I thought it was so they couldn't think clearly an would end up saying too much.

Um...I think Fox is a better source than CBS, because Fox didn't make false reports.

Yes they did make false reports. Then they apologized when they realized their mistake, just like CBS. Making mistakes is normal. Neither one of them purposefully lied, they simply made a mistake.

Here is a link to their apology:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134166,00.html

Fox News? Since When is this credible?!
They actually had the audacity to put someone from the Christian News on there news program as one of their "experts". Where as CNN put a Catholic Church, atheist, Jewish, and Political expert.
Can you explicate, this post really dosen't make sense.

How is a pointless war that destabilizes the world's oil supply and gives the world an impression of America as bloodthirsty warmongers good?
If the War in Iraq was going to have a big impact on the oil supply, it would have had to have been a major factor pre-war, which it wasn't. Most of the oil instability over the past two years has come from strikes in Venezuela and turmoil in Nigeria, not the War in Iraq.

If the War in Iraq was going to have a big impact on the oil supply, it would have had to have been a major factor pre-war, which it wasn't. Most of the oil instability over the past two years has come from strikes in Venezuela and turmoil in Nigeria, not the War in Iraq.
Ok, but it has destabilized the middle east. It's become a terrorist recruiting tool. Repercussions are being felt in Saudi, Iran, and elsewhere.

George Bush is one of the best presidents we have ever had. He never does anything that would not honor God.

I have never read a post that so wonderfully treads the line between sarcasm and absurd opinion. I cannot tell either way, all I can do is laugh.

No matter which it is....BRAVO

Okay okay everyone, instead of making up lies, because these are through and through, lets try to focus on what each party excels at and needs to improve on, and this won't be partisan:

Republicans:
Good points: Are backed by the majority of the country for Christian moral beliefs, is very good at connecting with the Midwest, the South, the Southeast, and the Southwest. Now hold majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives, and hold the Presidency for another 4 years.
Bad points: Can't really connect with most minorities. Can't usually take the Northeast, the West Coast, or the Great Lakes states. Beliefs in limits on civil rights make them easy targets.

Democrats:
Good points: Are backed by most minorities for pushing for civil rights. Can connect with the Northeast,West Coast, and the Great Lakes states very well. Have held the majority of the Senate and House of Representatives for many years until this one. Have many young people on their side.
Bad points: Lost the Senate, the House of Representatives, and failed to gain control of the Presidency in the recent 2004 election. Cannot connect with the Midwest, the South, the Southeast, and the Southwest. Controversial beliefs on morals make them easy targets.





Remember this is all non-partisan.

Thousands of people including Mothers, Fathers, sons, daughters, children were murdered. Killed with out hope. Anything we can do to prevent this from happening again here or elsewhere needs to be done. Choke hold someone? YES Put a hood over there head? YES Torture? YES. for the love of life? YES

Look I know that seeing this on TV or in newspapers sucks. But it needs to happen. And the Media needs to back off.

God speed to all!

This doesn't look like a very professional website though.

Some others

http://www.newshounds.us/2004/12/21/fbi_letters_outline_abuse_point_to_approving_bush_memo.php
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-abuse21dec21,0,1535240.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines

I thought it was so they couldn't think clearly an would end up saying too much.

The real question though, with regard to the convention is whether it cuases suffering or not: a quick look at any of the many websites concerned with sleep deprivation will make it clear that it has negative effects both mentally and physically.

Okay okay everyone, instead of making up lies, because these are through and through, lets try to focus on what each party excels at and needs to improve on, and this won't be partisan:

Republicans:
Good points: Are backed by the majority of the country for Christian moral beliefs, is very good at connecting with the Midwest, the South, the Southeast, and the Southwest. Now hold majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives, and hold the Presidency for another 4 years.
Bad points: Can't really connect with most minorities. Can't usually take the Northeast, the West Coast, or the Great Lakes states. Beliefs in limits on civil rights make them easy targets.

Democrats:
Good points: Are backed by most minorities for pushing for civil rights. Can connect with the Northeast,West Coast, and the Great Lakes states very well. Have held the majority of the Senate and House of Representatives for many years until this one. Have many young people on their side.
Bad points: Lost the Senate, the House of Representatives, and failed to gain control of the Presidency in the recent 2004 election. Cannot connect with the Midwest, the South, the Southeast, and the Southwest. Controversial beliefs on morals make them easy targets.





Remember this is all non-partisan.
I have to ask, what lies have you seen in this thread?

The middle east has ALWAYS and probably always will, be unstable. Hundreds of years of religious war isn't going away anytime soon.

Torture, while banned in the Geneva Convention, is sometimes necessary to get information when time constraints/new information is critical. Every country either has used it, or currently uses it, it's just a matter of who gets caught! Personally, as an 'Merican, if the torture of some jackhole who's placing IEDs leads to some of my friends coming home safely, I'm all for it. Of course, I'm not PC...

As far as not fighting Al Qaeda, who do you think's kidnapping folks in Iraq and cutting off heads... There's the link. WMDs? They've been found in small amounts, as well as some other things we didn't know they had, but the liberal media won't report it.

Bush's past is in the past, either way, he's better than the deserter/traitor Kerry in any form.

LA

Thousands of people including Mothers, Fathers, sons, daughters, children were murdered. Killed with out hope. Anything we can do to prevent this from happening again here or elsewhere needs to be done. Choke hold someone? YES Put a hood over there head? YES Torture? YES. for the love of life? YES

Look I know that seeing this on TV or in newspapers sucks. But it needs to happen. And the Media needs to back off.

God speed to all!

Ah, you believe we should stoop to the bad guys levels to stop them? But then aren't we just as bad?

The real question though, with regard to the convention is whether it cuases suffering or not: a quick look at any of the many websites concerned with sleep deprivation will make it clear that it has negative effects both mentally and physically.
All quickly reversible by allowing the person to sleep.

I have to ask, what lies have you seen in this thread?That Bush ordered torture. I mean, I have been given no credible proof yet that would confirm such "info".

Okay okay everyone, instead of making up lies, because these are through and through, lets try to focus on what each party excels at and needs to improve on, and this won't be partisan:

Republicans:
Good points: Are backed by the majority of the country for Christian moral beliefs, is very good at connecting with the Midwest, the South, the Southeast, and the Southwest. Now hold majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives, and hold the Presidency for another 4 years.
Bad points: Can't really connect with most minorities. Can't usually take the Northeast, the West Coast, or the Great Lakes states. Beliefs in limits on civil rights make them easy targets.

Democrats:
Good points: Are backed by most minorities for pushing for civil rights. Can connect with the Northeast,West Coast, and the Great Lakes states very well. Have held the majority of the Senate and House of Representatives for many years until this one. Have many young people on their side.
Bad points: Lost the Senate, the House of Representatives, and failed to gain control of the Presidency in the recent 2004 election. Cannot connect with the Midwest, the South, the Southeast, and the Southwest. Controversial beliefs on morals make them easy targets.





Remember this is all non-partisan.

It is also rather sterotypical. When you say "connect with" a certain area, you apparently mean "win." However, elections have been increasingly moved towards a 50-50 split. In the presidential election, for example, there were only one or two states won by more than 5 or 6 percent. Thus, both parties seem to "connect with" quite a few of the voters in these areas (although I would replace "connect with" and just say that voters feel that they are not as bad as the other guy.)

The middle east has ALWAYS and probably always will, be unstable. Hundreds of years of religious war isn't going away anytime soon.

Torture, while banned in the Geneva Convention, is sometimes necessary to get information when time constraints/new information is critical. Every country either has used it, or currently uses it, it's just a matter of who gets caught! Personally, as an 'Merican, if the torture of some jackhole who's placing IEDs leads to some of my friends coming home safely, I'm all for it. Of course, I'm not PC...

As far as not fighting Al Qaeda, who do you think's kidnapping folks in Iraq and cutting off heads... There's the link. WMDs? They've been found in small amounts, as well as some other things we didn't know they had, but the liberal media won't report it.

Bush's past is in the past, either way, he's better than the deserter/traitor Kerry in any form.

LA

Let's leave Kerry's past in the past, too, shall we? ;)

That Bush ordered torture. I mean, I have been given no credible proof yet that would confirm such "info".
Yeah, so far we've only gotten a good bit of hearsay, and no direct evidence. I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that this document actually exists, just a link to a couple of websites, whose respectability is currently being questioned. If you can get me a PDF file, or a link to a real news source, NYTimes, CBS, CNN, or any legit news source I'll put more stock in this comment, at the moment though, there is no real evidence for me to believe.

That Bush ordered torture. I mean, I have been given no credible proof yet that would confirm such "info".

you havent looked for it. the memos are public now. You can find copies on the ACLU website (www.aclu.org).

Of course. This is even worse than those terroist who cut off peoples heads!! This is much more inhumane than slowly cutting some's head off ( sarcasm))

Listen. If the terroist dont play by the rules then why should we??

you havent looked for it. the memos are public now. You can find copies on the ACLU website (www.aclu.org).
Do you think I would consider the ACLU, one of the most liberal groups, if not the most, in the country? I'll check it out, just to prove how biased it is.

Do you think I would consider the ACLU, one of the most liberal groups, if not the most, in the country? I'll check it out, just to prove how biased it is.
So liberal they stand up for the KKK?

Heres a direct link to the officially released government documents (including the memos and reports on investigations), for those who still think they are fabricated:

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/

Big News! The most liberal group in the nation is blaming Bush for ordering torture, but don't give any credible proof such happened. Oh, and in other news: Water is wet and Isreal and Palestine hate each other.

Big News! The most liberal group in the nation is blaming Bush for ordering torture, but don't give any credible proof such happened. Oh, and in other news: Water is wet and Isreal and Palestine hate each other.

You didnt look at the site did you? They provided all of the released documents as proof. The whole body of documents is there for you to peruse at your pleasure, Ive linked to them above.

I checked CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox News, and none of them say Bush has ordered torture. So, the ACLU has even less credibility.

I checked CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox News, and none of them say Bush has ordered torture. So, the ACLU has even less credibility.

So, read the original source. The original documents are all there.

So, read the original source. The original documents are all there.
But can you prove the documents are not falsified?

But can you prove the documents are not falsified?

They were released officially by the US government. If they are falsified then the government falsified them.

Let's leave Kerry's past in the past, too, shall we? ;)

Touché, point taken. :D

I did not see any where that the ACLU put blame on Bush and said he ordered torture.

I did not see any where that the ACLU put blame on Bush and said he ordered torture.

Thats because, despite your running your mouth about how the ACLU is spreading all these lies about Bush, they havent made that claim. They have, however, published the relevant official government documents.

Everyone has used those kinds of interrogation. Don't act like the US is so high and mighty and too good for it.
I watched a documentary where it shows abunch of people think they can hold information and they gave them to a Counter-Terrorist team for 48 to get the secret out. They used all those things save the attack dog. It's not inhuman, if it means thousands of people can be saved for one terrorists sleep, i'll take it.

Everyone has used those kinds of interrogation. Don't act like the US is so high and mighty and too good for it.
I watched a documentary where it shows abunch of people think they can hold information and they gave them to a Counter-Terrorist team for 48 to get the secret out. They used all those things save the attack dog. It's not inhuman, if it means thousands of people can be saved for one terrorists sleep, i'll take it.

Theres a problem with that theory however. The first problem is that it has been proven that the vast majority of torture victims do not have any valuable information.

The second problem is that it has been proven that torture is not effective in obtaining information.

The third problem is that it has been proven that torture leads to false confessions (and false information) much more often than other, more humane methods of interrogation.

The fourth problem is that it isnt the sleep they are losing. They are being mentally scarred for life. People are driven insane by this type of torture. The torture may end today but it will haunt them for life. Ask an American who has survived a POW camp how it has affected him. You wont even need to hear the words he says to understand how it has affected him, just observe his body language as he reacts to the question.

So, why would we want to use a technique that is 1. Barbaric. 2. Ineffective and 3. Evil?

Why don't you all stfu about politics. There is no use preaching to otehrs about your political beliefs. They don't care. Just keep your shitty opinions to yourself.



"Your opinion matters.....to you"

The Geneva Convention Against Torture:

"For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Anyone know if the US ratified this convention or not?
They haven't. (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/catsigs.html)

Listen. If the terroist dont play by the rules then why should we??

Terrorists are called such because they do not play by the rules- if America decides not to play by the rules, then it will be no better than the terrorists, and proabably worse.

They haven't. (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/catsigs.html)
Thats the UN convention.

Thats the UN convention.
Thats the convention that that quote comes from.

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/6260/1/245/

Well now! Not surprising why they would resist releasing it until rights groups invoke FOIA to get it!
Oh, wow! Now THERE's a really reputable source! :rolleyes:

Thats the convention that that quote comes from.
Which article is it?

Heres a good one:

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/FBI.121504.4940_4941.pdf

This one is quite interesting. An FBI agent is asked to report all abuse he has seen while in Abu Ghraib. The agent is unsure about what to report because he has seen alot of abuse but all of the abuse is considered legal under the Executive order (signed by Bush). This is his email explaining his confusion on whether he should report all abuse or only abuse that wasnt approved by the president.

Which article is it?
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
Part I, Article 1.

Bush is a moron and we will burn in hell due to his re-election, the people of Jesusland just don't get the message!! Nothing against god eh? how about trying to ban people from getting married to the same sex? that is just wrong, you cant ban that, what happened to the pursuit of happiness? what about roe v. wade, we all know he wants to overturn the abortion laws, making them illegal, guess what thats exactly what the communists did in romania, the nation i was born in, and its outcome? hundreds of girls died having un-professional, illegal abortions... Privatizing Social Security on the agenda, it will murder our economy and welfare system. The man is not fit to run this country. Im not at all surprised about this article, I hope he gets impeached and removed from office!!

All people supporting Bush should go through sleep deprivation and other such tortures. Then maybe instead of making them insane, which they already are, it would make them sane and want to get rid of him. Personally, I think that Bush should be executed. Not assassinated, that's too good for him. Also what is with people thinking we all hate Bush for use of cocaine? We hate him for what he did to other people in other countries. And what he's trying to do in the U.S. of A.(By the way, I'm canadian and no one I know supports Bush, not even the americans I know) And sleep deprivation is torture meant to make people admit to anything true or not. Bush is one twisted fucking asshole.

Terrorists are called such because they do not play by the rules- if America decides not to play by the rules, then it will be no better than the terrorists, and proabably worse.
:headbang: America doesn't play by the fucking rules, you idiot. And Bush is a fucking terrorist.

Of course. This is even worse than those terroist who cut off peoples heads!! This is much more inhumane than slowly cutting some's head off ( sarcasm))

Listen. If the terroist dont play by the rules then why should we??


So that we can tell the good guys from the bad guys, now that the old white hat/black hat system has fallen into disuse?

All quickly reversible by allowing the person to sleep.

By this reasoning electrical stimulation of the pain centres of the brain would be equally acceptable - it is, after all, quickly reversible by turning off the current.

They haven't. (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/catsigs.html)

Thanks, I couldn't find a list myself.


You know, that hasn't done much to improve my view of the USA.

The whole point of voting in a candidate is so that he will enact the platform he ran on... So, Bush ran on moral values which means the people voted in a President they knew would try to ban gay marriage and abortion... This is the will of the majority, not some one guy changing the nation. Also, since the Enron incident, the economy has done nothing but get strengthened. Everything that kept the economy down was not his fault, a.k.a. 9/11, Enron, MCI, the overall fear of cooking books. The economy is stronger then ever, everyone got taxcuts and the deficit will be well on the way to getting lowered as soon as Congress gets around to approving a budget.

Also, whether one agress with the war on Iraq or not... it was for the good of the world, especially if we get a good turnout at the election on the 30th. Regardless of what happens, Saddam is gone, Bin Laden has been in hiding for years, and we have had no more terrorist attacks in the U.S..

Finally, the establishment clause is not in place to stop any interaction between the government and religious institutions... God *no pun intended* forbid that the government supports charitys like the Salvation Army and Goodwill during Christmas times because they are awful brainwashing institutions that do not give clothes and food to the homeless, or help the local communities in any way.

OH MY GOD BUSH TORTURED TERRORISTS WHO WERE PLANNING TO SUICIDE BOMB CROWDED MALLS AND OTHER CIVLLIAN LOCATIONS OMG OMG OMG

Terrorists are not soldiers for any nation and are therefore not protected by the Geneva Convention. We can do whatever we want to them. If they didn't want to be tortured, maybe they shouldn't have become terrorists.

OH MY GOD BUSH TORTURED TERRORISTS WHO WERE PLANNING TO SUICIDE BOMB CROWDED MALLS AND OTHER CIVLLIAN LOCATIONS OMG OMG OMG

Terrorists are not soldiers for any nation and are therefore not protected by the Geneva Convention. We can do whatever we want to them. If they didn't want to be tortured, maybe they shouldn't have become terrorists.

If you had the choice, you would have just tortured people who haven't yet been convicted of any wrongdoing.

Nice job, Conservo-ignorantron 3000.

If I had a terrorist (or anyone,for that matter) sitting in my room, and the difference between bombs being blown up on U.S. soil or not was whether this guy talked, I would beat him to death if that's what it required.

But, I guess it's cool if you would rather our country turn into something like Israel.

Heres a good one:

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/FBI.121504.4940_4941.pdf

This one is quite interesting. An FBI agent is asked to report all abuse he has seen while in Abu Ghraib. The agent is unsure about what to report because he has seen alot of abuse but all of the abuse is considered legal under the Executive order (signed by Bush). This is his email explaining his confusion on whether he should report all abuse or only abuse that wasnt approved by the president.
Wow, that was hard to read, the document was really poorly scanned, but after finishing it off, I have some thoughts.

The document refers to concerns involving Sensory Deprivation, Environmental Manipulation, and sleep schedule manipulation (not necessarily deprivation,) and the use of military working dogs.

What it comes down to is one's definition of torture more than anything else. While I'm not exactly pleased with the use of these methods, I'd disagree that they constitute torture, as their point is not to cause pain, just discomfort or worry.

Terrorists are not soldiers for any nation and are therefore not protected by the Geneva Convention.


Incorrect: the Geneva Convention Against Torture makes no distinction between soldiers, civilians or anything in between.

If I had a terrorist (or anyone,for that matter) sitting in my room, and the difference between bombs being blown up on U.S. soil or not was whether this guy talked, I would beat him to death if that's what it required.

Not literally, I hope.

Terrorists are not soldiers for any nation and are therefore not protected by the Geneva Convention. We can do whatever we want to them. If they didn't want to be tortured, maybe they shouldn't have become terrorists.

:eek:

So I can legally be tortured?

Yep, literally. Are you saying you wouldn't if it came down to protecting your loved ones and friends?

Yep, literally. Are you saying you wouldn't if it came down to protecting your loved ones and friends?

Somehow I don't think literally beating someone to death is going to make them talk, after all dead men tell no tales.

Theres a problem with that theory however. The first problem is that it has been proven that the vast majority of torture victims do not have any valuable information.

The second problem is that it has been proven that torture is not effective in obtaining information.

The third problem is that it has been proven that torture leads to false confessions (and false information) much more often than other, more humane methods of interrogation.

The fourth problem is that it isnt the sleep they are losing. They are being mentally scarred for life. People are driven insane by this type of torture. The torture may end today but it will haunt them for life. Ask an American who has survived a POW camp how it has affected him. You wont even need to hear the words he says to understand how it has affected him, just observe his body language as he reacts to the question.

So, why would we want to use a technique that is 1. Barbaric. 2. Ineffective and 3. Evil?

And it's your opinion it is Barbaric and Evil. I have no info on ineffective, so i'm not gonna try to fight you on that one.

:eek:

So I can legally be tortured?

No, because you are not engaged in war against the United States. Terrorists are unlawful combatants. However, if you decide you want to start a revolution and begin peppering Army bases with gunfire, then the Geneva Convention would hold no protection for you. The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists.

Somehow I don't think literally beating someone to death is going to make them talk, after all dead men tell no tales.

You're not supposed to kill them right away :rolleyes: .

No, because you are not engaged in war against the United States. Terrorists are unlawful combatants. However, if you decide you want to start a revolution and begin peppering Army bases with gunfire, then the Geneva Convention would hold no protection for you. The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists.
Terrorist != Revolutionaries

As someone who had insomnia for a few years, I can definately tell you not allowing someone to sleep when the need to IS torture.

I once did an experiment to see how long I could stay up.

After Day 1 you are pretty tired.
Day 2 you start getting a wierd sick feeling.
By about Day 3 shadows begin to blend and move.
Day four you forget things you were just in the middle of saying, and start talking nonsense constantly.
Days 5 and 6 I don't remember too well.
Day 7 I was so messed up I was hallucinating constantly.

And that's just seven days, I forced myself to sleep after that because I was hearing voices in my head and such.



Whoever mentioned Chinese water torture, I didn't think the goal of that was sleep deprivation. I thought it was sensory deprivation. The random drops of water are the only stimulation you body feels (no light, no sound, etc.) eventually the drops begin to feel like a jackhammer pounding on your head until a little drop of water is causing unbearable pain/insanity.

You're not supposed to kill them right away :rolleyes: .


So what is the point in beating them to death then?

And it's your opinion it is Barbaric and Evil. I have no info on ineffective, so i'm not gonna try to fight you on that one.
Even the Spanish Inquisition realised that torture din't produce accurate information or truful statements.

Humans feel pain, and most of us tend to say anything if we think it will stop.

However, if you decide you want to start a revolution and begin peppering Army bases with gunfire, then the Geneva Convention would hold no protection for you. The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists.

However, if you were to start a revolution and begin peppering army bases with gunfire, and you were wearing a uniform such as to make your status clear, were openly bearing arms, had some kind of chain of command to a political leader and followed the laws of war, then you would be covered by the Third Geneva Convention.

There has to be some way to extract information. Sleep deprivation seems like the most humane way to go.
A few problems with this:

- information extracted through torture (or "stress and duress" if you're too pussy to call it what it is) is notoriously undependable. You'd say anything to keep a white-trash skank like Lyndie England from touching your dick

- by U.S. government estimates, 80% of those imprisoned at Abu Ghraib are innocent civilians

- sleep deprivation causes hallucinations and symptoms of psychosis eventually. Do you think that results in good information?

- treating people in an inhumane manner creates more opposition from previously sympathetic or neutral people. Calling them "terrorists" when they get fed up and try to expel you from their country doesn't help. This is why the Iraqi opposition is now estimated at 200,000 people

Do Islamic terrorists openly bear arms? Do they wear uniforms? No. They strap C4 under their jackets and find women and children to kill.

Do Islamic terrorists openly bear arms?

Some do.

Do they wear uniforms?

Depends what you mean by uniform

Also, using your criteria. US agents in other countries can legitimately be tortured. You do realise this right?

Do Islamic terrorists openly bear arms? Do they wear uniforms? No. They strap C4 under their jackets and find women and children to kill.
So you're saying that one should immediately sink to the level of the opposition? In that case, you're fighting for nothing.

Also, using your criteria. US agents in other countries can legitimately be tortured. You do realise this right?

I do, and it makes me respect the agents in those countries even more.

So you're saying that one should immediately sink to the level of the opposition? In that case, you're fighting for nothing.

:confused:
When did I endorse terrorist attacks on civillians?

Maybe the actual definition from Geneva should be posted :

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

I do, and it makes me respect the agents in those countries even more.
So your zeal for having people you don't like tortured extends to such an extent that you are willing for your own countrymen (who are iyo in the right) to be put at the same risk. Odd.

But at least your consistant.

Terrorist != Revolutionaries
I can think of a country that won its freedom from a foreign power using groups of non-uniformed guerilla fighters who sometimes attacked non-military (commercial) targets. I live there, and think it's the best place there is, despite George Bush and the inbred cowards who support him.

Of course, we never could have done it without help from France, but...

I can think of a country that won its freedom from a foreign power using groups of non-uniformed guerilla fighters who sometimes attacked non-military (commercial) targets. I live there, and think it's the best place there is, despite George Bush and the inbred cowards who support him.

Of course, we never could have done it without help from France, but...

Just one?

:confused:
When did I endorse terrorist attacks on civillians?
Well let's see, the insurgents have killed maybe a few hundred civilians in Iraq (and a lot of US soldiers and mercenaries), but the U.S. forces have killed tens of thousands of civilians there...you do the math.

I'm not blaming the soldiers, BTW - war ALWAYS involves atrocity, it's the leaders who need to be held accountable, not some kid from Missouri who is worried that every shadow might be an insurgent with a gun. Of COURSE he's gonna go overboard...but Rumsfeld and Bush blame the troops for what THEY ordered. Cowardly trash.

Well let's see, the insurgents have killed maybe a few hundred civilians in Iraq (and a lot of US soldiers and mercenaries), but the U.S. forces have killed tens of thousands of civilians there...you do the math.

I'm not blaming the soldiers, BTW - war ALWAYS involves atrocity, it's the leaders who need to be held accountable, not some kid from Missouri who is worried that every shadow might be an insurgent with a gun. Of COURSE he's gonna go overboard...but Rumsfeld and Bush blame the troops for what THEY ordered. Cowardly trash.
Where do you get those statistics?

Thanks. This is helpful.
Let's take a look at the conditions:

a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(a)-Well, the terrorists certainly have leaders. Osama Bin Laden comes to mind.

(b)-I don't recall any reports of the 9/11 hijackers wearing clothing that would identify them as Islamic terrorists, nor do I hear of the bombers in Israel wearing specific garments.

(c)-Terrorists certainly conceal whatever weapons they might be using to inflict damage.

(d)- Last time I checked, killing civillians was not in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

So, terrorists fulfill 1/5 conditions of the Geneva Convention, which does not protect them from being tortued. Basically, we can do whatever we need to in order to protect our country.

I can think of a country that won its freedom from a foreign power using groups of non-uniformed guerilla fighters who sometimes attacked non-military (commercial) targets. I live there, and think it's the best place there is, despite George Bush and the inbred cowards who support him.


I didn't know you were Irish.

Well let's see, the insurgents have killed maybe a few hundred civilians in Iraq (and a lot of US soldiers and mercenaries), but the U.S. forces have killed tens of thousands of civilians there...you do the math.

I'm not blaming the soldiers, BTW - war ALWAYS involves atrocity, it's the leaders who need to be held accountable, not some kid from Missouri who is worried that every shadow might be an insurgent with a gun. Of COURSE he's gonna go overboard...but Rumsfeld and Bush blame the troops for what THEY ordered. Cowardly trash.

You call Bush and Rumsfeld cowardly? The easy way out would be to not try and extract information on possible U.S. attacks. The easy way would be to try and not make anybody mad, try to not step on anybody's toes. However, I believe Bush is a man of principal, if not the sharpest tool in the shed. He is doing what he has to do to keep us safe.

Thanks. This is helpful.
Let's take a look at the conditions:

a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(a)-Well, the terrorists certainly have leaders. Osama Bin Laden comes to mind.

(b)-I don't recall any reports of the 9/11 hijackers wearing clothing that would identify them as Islamic terrorists, nor do I hear of the bombers in Israel wearing specific garments.

(c)-Terrorists certainly conceal whatever weapons they might be using to inflict damage.

(d)- Last time I checked, killing civillians was not in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

So, terrorists fulfill 1/5 conditions of the Geneva Convention, which does not protect them from being tortued. Basically, we can do whatever we need to in order to protect our country.

The Taliban had a command structure with a form of uniform and carried their weapons openly.

Yet we were told they were terrorists. Strange.

Basically, we can do whatever we need to in order to protect our country.

So, the US is justified in doing anything which is not explicitly forbidden by agreements it has signed?

Thanks. This is helpful.
Let's take a look at the conditions:

a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(a)-Well, the terrorists certainly have leaders. Osama Bin Laden comes to mind.

(b)-I don't recall any reports of the 9/11 hijackers wearing clothing that would identify them as Islamic terrorists, nor do I hear of the bombers in Israel wearing specific garments.

(c)-Terrorists certainly conceal whatever weapons they might be using to inflict damage.

(d)- Last time I checked, killing civillians was not in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

So, terrorists fulfill 1/5 conditions of the Geneva Convention, which does not protect them from being tortued. Basically, we can do whatever we need to in order to protect our country.

But Taleban fighters fulfill most of not all of those, so they are being treated illegally in guantanemo

looks like im not the only one who picked up on that

looks like im not the only one who picked up on that
:D

I can think of a country that won its freedom from a foreign power using groups of non-uniformed guerilla fighters who sometimes attacked non-military (commercial) targets. I live there, and think it's the best place there is, despite George Bush and the inbred cowards who support him.

Of course, we never could have done it without help from France, but...

True, at the time of the Revolution, the colony soldiers were considered terrorists. The main difference between U.S. revolutionaries and Islamic Terrorists is that we did not target civillians, women, and children.

Secondly, it's bad form to attack the person you are debating. Poor show.

Secondly, it's bad form to attack the person you are debating. Poor show.

Personally I read the 'inbred cowards' bit to refer to Rumsfeld and his ilk rather than anyone of this board...

The Taliban had a command structure with a form of uniform and carried their weapons openly.

Yet we were told they were terrorists. Strange.

We aren't talking about the Taliban. Search for "Taliban" in the memo we are discussing. It isn't there.

[deleted]

True, at the time of the Revolution, the colony soldiers were considered terrorists. The main difference between U.S. revolutionaries and Islamic Terrorists is that we did not target civillians, women, and children.

Is that because of inability or inherent moral superiority?

Personally I read the 'inbred cowards' bit to refer to Rumsfeld and his ilk rather than anyone of this board...

I took it to mean anyone that supports Bush, which would include me. Whatever.

We aren't talking about the Taliban. Search for "Taliban" in the memo we are discussing. It isn't there.

But we are talking about the validity of torture

We were told the Taliban were terrorist because they flew planes into the WTC towers and the Pentagon.

The Taliban didn't fly the planes into the WTC or the pentagon.

Is that because of inability or inherent moral superiority?

It's because war was fought differently back then. If you did not line up in a row and shoot at the other side, you were deemed uncivillized and dishonourable.

I am not quite sure what you mean here. If you mean inability in that we could not stand toe to toe with the G.B. army, then yes. If you mean inability in that we were unable to attack women and children, then no. I don't think inherent moral superiority has anything to do with it.

The Taliban didn't fly the planes into the WTC or the pentagon.

Oops, you're right. My mistake. The Taliban supported those that flew planes into the WTC and the pentagon.

You win this time.

The Taliban were never considered the ruling government of Afganistan by anyone except Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. And Saudi Arabia quickly unrecongized them after it was certain the US was either going to get Osama from the Taliban or go into Afganistan guns blazing. The Geneva convention states uniforms, of which the Taliban did not have. They dressed as civilians, and civilians with guns. The GC says uniforms which can be distinguished as military.

It's because war was fought differently back then. If you did not line up in a row and shoot at the other side, you were deemed uncivillized and dishonourable.

I was talking about targetting civilians and children .

I am not quite sure what you mean here. If you mean inability in that we could not stand toe to toe with the G.B. army, then yes. If you mean inability in that we were unable to attack women and children, then no. I don't think inherent moral superiority has anything to do with it.

By inability, I mean I think it would be considerably harder for the rebels to sail all the war to England in the middle of the war to carry out attacks.

But you seem to disagree, how?

First off, its the ACLU...an extremely left wing organization. So to trust anything it says is, laughable.

Secondly the Geneva convention was established for Rules of War between countries. We are not fighting a country are we? We are fighting a terrorist organization. Therefore Geneva conventions ought not to be held as the end all in this case. The Geneva Convention was for a different type of war. We are trying to fight a completely new type of war now.

The Taliban were never considered the ruling government of Afganistan by anyone except Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. And Saudi Arabia quickly unrecongized them after it was certain the US was either going to get Osama from the Taliban or go into Afganistan guns blazing. The Geneva convention states uniforms, of which the Taliban did not have. They dressed as civilians, and civilians with guns. The GC says uniforms which can be distinguished as military.

They still were though. They definately governed the country. Not recognising them as such is a political decision on the part of the state rather then one based on evidence or fact.

The Taliban did wear uniforms btw.

Christ is stoned and dancing on my border! Look at him dance!!! :D

First off, its the ACLU...an extremely left wing organization. So to trust anything it says is, laughable.

Secondly the Geneva convention was established for Rules of War between countries. We are not fighting a country are we? We are fighting a terrorist organization. Therefore Geneva conventions ought not to be held as the end all in this case.

So then when the US imprisons a foreign citizen the standard peacetime international laws should apply, surely?

Has anyone noticed how much the situation in Iraq is rather pointless?
I can already tell what is going to happen, Bush will anounce another date to bring troops back from Iraq but that wont happen ( kinda like the last time he did that). The 'government' in Iraq will be totaly F-ed in the A ( which it already is) and we will end up supporting a fundamentalist group that ( after we do get troops out) will be fighting the Shiet in the civil war that will definatly happen. But, just like countless times in history, that 'fundamentalist' group will uses those weapons and cash we give them to back stab us 30 years down the line

think about that

In terms of the validity of torture, what I'm saying is that the U.S. government has every right to torture Islamic Terrorists. I am not talking about national armies, such as the Taliban army of Afghanistan. Humane or not, the simple fact is that we are in an undeclared war (the cliche "War on Terror", if you will). Islamic terrorists want to detonate bombs on U.S. soil, and we need to do everything we can to prevent that from happening. In war, people are tortured, and the Geneva Convention is often thrown out the window. God forbid, should you ever have to go to war and rise to a rank where you know information about the movement of troops, etc., you will probably be tortured for information if you are captured as a P.O.W. The winners write the history books, and only the losers are held accountable for war crimes.

Do I support the torture of high-ranking terrorist officers if it means preventing a nuclear bomb from being detonated in a major U.S. city? Absolutely. It would be my hope that most would agree.

This will be my last post on this subject.

These are enemy combatants. But they dont fight for their country. This isnt about their citizenship, it is about whom they fight for.

First off, its the ACLU...an extremely left wing organization. So to trust anything it says is, laughable.

Left Wing = Untrustworthy :confused:

Does it follow on that the more left wing an organsion or a person the less trustworthy they are?

Also, is it the more right wing some one is more trustworthy they are?

Secondly the Geneva convention was established for Rules of War between countries. We are not fighting a country are we? We are fighting a terrorist organization. Therefore Geneva conventions ought not to be held as the end all in this case.

Well, since it seems the nation state reserves the right to not recognise a government as the government of another country. The Geneva Conventions become more of a nice idea then something to be used (unless it can be used in your favour).

In terms of the validity of torture, what I'm saying is that the U.S. government has every right to torture Islamic Terrorists. I am not talking about national armies, such as the Taliban army of Afghanistan.

But Taliban soldiers are being held as enemy combatants and being tortured and held illegally. Do you think the US Gvt is in the wrong in this case?

Humane or not, the simple fact is that we are in an undeclared war (the cliche "War on Terror", if you will). Islamic terrorists want to detonate bombs on U.S. soil, and we need to do everything we can to prevent that from happening.
#
Yes, even if it mean detonating bombs on their soil.

Do I support the torture of high-ranking terrorist officers if it means preventing a nuclear bomb from being detonated in a major U.S. city? Absolutely. It would be my hope that most would agree.

What makes you think he will give accurate information?

First off, its the ACLU...an extremely left wing organization. So to trust anything it says is, laughable.

Yeah... human rights is a left wing issue now, I know it!

And we all know that left wingers fight for gun rights and for the KKK to march in the streets.

Oops, you're right. My mistake. The Taliban supported those that flew planes into the WTC and the pentagon.

You win this time.

weren't we blaming that on the Al Queda?

weren't we blaming that on the Al Queda?
He jusy admitted he was wrong. Please don't rub his nose in it

to me Left-Wing=Anti-Bush. Thus its like slander. Say whatever to damage their character. Even if there isnt that much evidence to back it up sort of thing. forgive me for not being more specific.

And again we are not fighting a government of a country. We are fighting a criminal organization.

kind of like the british not fighting a government, but a criminal organization when we fought for dependence?

o... i didn't realize he admitted that... had to skim these 10 pages to get up to speed.
my apologys teranius

Sleep Deprivation is inhumane, and what they do WHILE the hoods are on makes it illegal, plus, they haven't even denied putting hoods on people at Guantanimo, then putting them on a table, and filling the hood with water to simulate drowning.

This doesn't look like a very professional website though.
Yes, and Tim Wheeler is the singer/guitarist in Irish band Ash.

I know Bush made a mistake in his reasons to go to Iraq, but I still think that it was good for the world overall.
By putting us all at a greater risk of terrorist attack? Yes, thanks, Bush. :rolleyes:

Yes, and Tim Wheeler is the singer/guitarist in Irish band Ash.

whats that got to do with anything?

(good band btw :) )

Very good your catching on. Of course england lost. That and the "organization" was declaring independence. They were "Rebels", not the murderous terrorists we currently face. This TO merely wishes to kill the "infidels". Not to mention the American Revolution was eventually supported by France. (I hasten to add it was towards the end of the confict)

all right. how about Ho chi minh and his life persuit of giving Vietnam its indepence? Russia and China supported that. We supported it until the French got all pissy and moany.

Very good your catching on. Of course england lost. That and the country was declaring independence, these ones merely wish to kill the "infidels". Not to mention the American Revolution was eventually supported by France. (I hasten to add it was towards the end of the confict)
Must......not.......comment
OK, I'll bite.
So when France joins late, their contribution becomes minimul. But when the US arrive late they were integral to victory?
:fluffle:

Either way, we were wrong to get into this little 'conflict' with Iraq and we were wrong to rush in and take 'liberate' Afghanistan from the previous government. Another point, why the hell cant we just declare war on a country anyway???? Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.... honestly, what the hell happened to war these days.

One cannot fight wars anymore. They are too politically incorrect, well any that America are in anyway. France and others can send troops in places no problem, but once America does it, watch out! make sure they arent planning to take over a country, make sure they arent decapitating women and children. :rolleyes:
ya know that whole rabble. Wars are hardly called wars anymore, now they are "Operations".

My point exactly. I dont see the point in running in with 4 man units, shoot things, run to the extraction point, and be helacoptered to safety.

What ever happend to companies flanking battalions or trench warfare.

War makes no sense anymore, its just run in, kill people, see whats goin on, and then leave. Sometimes set up a president in the country and sometimes not.

Of course. This is even worse than those terroist who cut off peoples heads!! This is much more inhumane than slowly cutting some's head off ( sarcasm))

Listen. If the terroist dont play by the rules then why should we??
Because we should be better than they are; if we're not, how can we claim our cause is just and their's isn't?

Not even that. Go in, get shot and not be allowed to shoot back.

Either way, we were wrong to get into this little 'conflict' with Iraq and we were wrong to rush in and take 'liberate' Afghanistan from the previous government. Another point, why the hell cant we just declare war on a country anyway???? Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.... honestly, what the hell happened to war these days.


You do realize that basically every nation in the world supported us going into Afghanistan... but anyway...

And to others... Ho Chi Minh was a Communist which is why we chose to not support him. The goal of our country throughout the Cold War was to stop the spread of Communism... Ho Chi Minh was by no means after the 'liberation' of Vietnam... He was a sadistic dictator that ended up starting a Genocide of about 25+million people... But I guess since liberalism rules this board now that that was alright because he did it for the right of his people... or something like that.

And why are we holding the Guantanamo people illegally... they aren't citizens of the U.S. so they aren't required to be given the right of appeal... even though they do have that now. So therefore they can't be held illegally since they can appeal their position. But whatever.

You know its public knowledge that they've been using these methods in Guantanamo Bay for a long time now, right? I don't see anything "cruel" about these methods, anyways.

A piece of paper means nothing to me. Someone could find a memo that said the Archduke Ferdinand was never really assassinated, but that doesn't mean the memo would be right. Why should we take much stock in one memo that says Bush ordered torture?

Oh, and before you gripe at me for being a biased conservative, let me head y'all off with this: okay, so Bush isn't a perfect president. Newsflash, folks: HE'S HUMAN! Just like every one of you! Humans make mistakes! It's natural!

I know Bush made a mistake in his reasons to go to Iraq, but I still think that it was good for the world overall.

For every citizen you make a casualty, another terrorist comes around, maybe even more than one. So now, more terrorists, good job there. Oh, and what about my race in the US(by 'my' race, I mean arabian/middle-easterners). Now my parents, relatives, and etc, can't even walk through an airport without getting pulled off aside and interrogated. You have to love racism, don't you? Oh, and don't pull 'OMG, THATS NOT ALL AMERICANS' on me. Its most americans, and most is more than just 'some'. If it were some, then well, I wouldn't care. But thanks to his so called 'justified' war in Iraq, every single day I have to endure dirty looks and racism, especially when the racism has physical effects, such as my dad's credit card being stolen, or before that, this guy at the U-Haul trying to charge him for credit car fraud, or him being laid off several times in the last year even though he graduated ar the top of his class during college, and is a highly skilled electrical engineer. Yea, so until you prove that the war in Iraq is more important than american's personnal lives, please, refrain from embarassing yourself.

And why are we holding the Guantanamo people illegally... they aren't citizens of the U.S. so they aren't required to be given the right of appeal... even though they do have that now. So therefore they can't be held illegally since they can appeal their position. But whatever.
because america signed the geneva convention and is breaking it. therefore their treatment of taleban prisoners is illegal

You do realize that basically every nation in the world supported us going into Afghanistan... but anyway...

And to others... Ho Chi Minh was a Communist which is why we chose to not support him. The goal of our country throughout the Cold War was to stop the spread of Communism... Ho Chi Minh was by no means after the 'liberation' of Vietnam... He was a sadistic dictator that ended up starting a Genocide of about 25+million people... But I guess since liberalism rules this board now that that was alright because he did it for the right of his people... or something like that.

And why are we holding the Guantanamo people illegally... they aren't citizens of the U.S. so they aren't required to be given the right of appeal... even though they do have that now. So therefore they can't be held illegally since they can appeal their position. But whatever.

Sigh.... the part where you say nearly every nation in the world supported us going into afghanistan really gets to me. if you could, please post a listing of all the nations that supported the USA to go into afghanistan.

But, my favorite part is where you say Ho Chi Minh wasn't after liberation.
When Vietnam was a French colony Ho Chi Minh tryed to free his country.
When Vietnam fought off the japanese in WW2, Ho Chi Minh went to Geneva to get freedom from the French oppressors. Finally, Ho Chi Minh decided he needed some allies if he wanted to get anywhere. Of course, Russia and China said yes if he became communist. I would have done the same thing.

Back to the subject, torture isn't an even considerable option when it comes to POWs. Best way to stop something is to make sure you don't do it. Kind of like disarming Nukes. LIke newzealand

Sigh.... the part where you say nearly every nation in the world supported us going into afghanistan really gets to me. if you could, please post a listing of all the nations that supported the USA to go into afghanistan.

But, my favorite part is where you say Ho Chi Minh wasn't after liberation.
When Vietnam was a French colony Ho Chi Minh tryed to free his country.
When Vietnam fought off the japanese in WW2, Ho Chi Minh went to Geneva to get freedom from the French oppressors. Finally, Ho Chi Minh decided he needed some allies if he wanted to get anywhere. Of course, Russia and China said yes if he became communist. I would have done the same thing.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6207.pdf

There is a link of the support for 'Operation Enduring Freedom'. Basically every important country in the world at least gave permission and some support for us.

And Ho Chi Minh was not after liberation, he was after conquering the land... France backed out long before we went into Vietnam. The people did not want the Viet Cong taking over and it was a major mistake to let them that led to the massacre of 25+million people.

because america signed the geneva convention and is breaking it. therefore their treatment of taleban prisoners is illegal
The Geneva Convention applies to thosewho do not sign it. As long as we did we are supposed to follow it.

Worse thing Republicans nominating the guy who gave the idea that Torture was okay. Bush wants that one guy.

The Geneva Convention Against Torture:

"For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Anyone know if the US ratified this convention or not?

Yes we ratified it, however, it is painfully obvious you dont know what your talking about.

Shall I illuminate your ignorance or shall we let you wander in the darkness a while ?

AAhhzz

They still were though. They definately governed the country. Not recognising them as such is a political decision on the part of the state rather then one based on evidence or fact.

The Taliban did wear uniforms btw.

I cant find a single picture of the Taliban in uniform.

Ah, you believe we should stoop to the bad guys levels to stop them? But then aren't we just as bad?

Depends BastardSword,

How many beheading videos have the US forces made?

Oh that right, NONE.

Are you sure you want to state that sleep deprivation and humiliation tactics are on par with beheading?

How about butchering? I believe the body of the british woman, ( who lived in Iraq for 30 years distributing aid to Iraqi citizens ) was found dismembered and gutted.

Is this equivelent with the pain and suffering of a person denied a few nights sleep? Or is it more?

Your equating these two things is beyond understanding

Quote:
Originally Posted by Conceptualists
They still were though. They definately governed the country. Not recognising them as such is a political decision on the part of the state rather then one based on evidence or fact.

The Taliban did wear uniforms btw.


I cant find a single picture of the Taliban in uniform.

Niether can I New York And Jersey.

Perhaps Conceptualists can describe the Taliban uniform and explain how it was distinctive from the clothing of the civilian population. Perhaps they can also explain why in pictures of the Taliban the men in them seemed to be wearing different color clothing and various footwear and how these differences constituted a Uniform in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

Terrorists are called such because they do not play by the rules- if America decides not to play by the rules, then it will be no better than the terrorists, and proabably worse.

Here are the rules :p

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

So lets take this apart shall we?

Under (a) "That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates"

Name the person reponsible for the conduct of the terrorists. If you can not then admit they are in violation of this provision of the Geneva Conventions ( GC )

Under (b) "Fixed and distinctive sign recognizable at a distance

Please describe the signage worn /flown /held /or otherwise carried by all the resistance groups, or admit they are operating in violation of the Geneva Conventions

While your at it, describe the distinctive sign that is used to distinguish a suicide bomber? I am sure the Occupational Forces and the Iraqi Interm government would be overjoyed to have the benefit of your wisdom

By the way Uniforms are considered proper individual signage from what I have been briefed on the Laws of Armed Conflict

Under (c) "That of carrying arms openly:"

If you have 150 pounds of explosive in the trunk of your car, and no distinctive signage on the exterior of the vehicle to designate it as a weapons system, is this carrying arms openly? If not the act is a violation of this provision is it not?

If you hide your weapons and blend in with the crowd; is this conforming to the clause "carrying arms openly"?

Under (d)That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

Under what provision of the Geneva Convention is Beheadings, Suicide Bombings or the use of Schools, Hospitals, or Religious Facilities (Mosques) for the conduct of military operations, storage of military supplies and as refuge for military combatants, the use of human shields, the hiding in the civilian population, the taking of hostages, the torturing and beheadings of civilians considered an acceptable part of the Laws and Customs of War?

Are not these people in violation of the terms of the Geneva Convention?

Refer to http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/civilianpersons.htm Article 2 just below for the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to groups that do not "accept and apply the provisions of the Geneva Conventions".

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/civilianpersons.htm

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

This seems to read that if the said Power, ( terrorists ), will "accept and applies the provisions ( of the Geneva Convention )" only then shall the occuping forces be obligated to recognize the Convention in relation to these groups

Please let me know if this is your interpretation as well.

If it is your interpretation please provide a legal rational for your arguement that the US is obligated to treat the terrorists as honorable Prisoners of War

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/civilianpersons.htm (cont.)

Article 4

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

Nationals of a neutral state who find themselves in the territory of a beligerant state shall not be regaurded as protected persons ( under the Geneva Conventions) while thier states have normal diplomatic representation in the state in whose hands they are.

Which Nations do not have "normal diplomatic relations" with the US?

Persons of these nations would be considered protected.

However if the confined persons nation does have "normal diplomatic relations" with the US then they are not "Protected Persons" under the Geneva Convention

Please provide the list of the countries that do not have normal diplomatic relations with the US and the number of detainies from these Nations.

Only these persons are given "Protected" status


http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

Article 37.-Prohibition of perfidy
1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:

(a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;

(b) The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;

(c) The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and

(d) The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.

How would you Feign civilian or non combatant status?

Oh yes the signage/Uniform thing again.

If they are not diplaying their signage, and are not openly carrying weapons are they not in violation of this term of the Geneva Convention?

If they are are they not "accepting and applying" are they not excluded from the protections of the Geneva Convention?

SECTION.-COMBATANT AND PRISONER-OF-WAR STATUS

Article 43.-Armed forces
1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.

3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.

Article 44.-Combatants and prisoners of war

1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) During each military engagement, and

(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

So persons not openly carrying thier weapons are considered to have "forefited his right to be a Prisoner of War"...how interesting. They are entitled to the protections equivelent to those accorded a prisoner of war that has been tried and punished for any offenses he has commited.

Interesting, so what does this mean?

Third Convention

Art. 68. Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

Lets see, You could be given the death sentence in Afganistan or Iraq prior to the occupation for doing what exactly?
Stealing?
Adaultry?
Blasphomy?
Speaking out against the government ( must less taking up arms against them) ?
Objecting to the rape of your children?
Being of the wrong ethnicity?
Being of the wrong religion?
Advocating free elections?
Protesting in any form or fashion?


It seems the RULES say that terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Convention.

According to the RULES the terrorists Are Not Protected, since they are not none of the provisions that are applicable to the treatment of Prisoners of War apply to terrorists.

One must be considered Protected by the Geneva Conventions to enjoy the rights and privledges of Protected status, and quite clearly the terrorists not meet these requirements in that they do not openly display signage and hide their weapons. In that they place the civilian population in danger, in that they take hostages, in that they behead captives all of this and their use of schools, hospitals and Mosques as munitions depots, hiding areas and military operations points shows that they are not "accepting and applying" the provisions of the Geneva Conventions thus the occupational forces and the provisional government are not bound to the Geneva Conventions in dealing with the terrorists are they?

The US could conceivably sentence every captured person to death carry out their execution and not be in violation of the Geneva Convention.

And sleep deprivation is worse? Humiliation is worse?

So tell me something Opereesonia

Why should the US go Above and Beyond the legal requirements of the treaty?

To show we are the Nice Guys?

The world wont believe that no matter what we do. Trying to prove it is a pointless waste of time.

Or do you believe that being nice will move the hearts of terrorists that can cut off the head of a screaming woman, gut and dismember her body and leave it out for birds and vermin to feast upon?

Any Questions?

Incorrect: the Geneva Convention Against Torture makes no distinction between soldiers, civilians or anything in between.

Actually it does make distinctions. The UN convention doesnt. See my previous LONG post

However is any country obligated to adhear to a treaty that they have not ratified?

Answer: No they are not

Have a nice day

Wow, that was hard to read, the document was really poorly scanned, but after finishing it off, I have some thoughts.

The document refers to concerns involving Sensory Deprivation, Environmental Manipulation, and sleep schedule manipulation (not necessarily deprivation,) and the use of military working dogs.

What it comes down to is one's definition of torture more than anything else. While I'm not exactly pleased with the use of these methods, I'd disagree that they constitute torture, as their point is not to cause pain, just discomfort or worry.

Yeah thats true, its all in the definition

I would think humiliation techniques would be counter productive in obtaining information, my own inclination to humiliation would be to clam up and hate my captors even more. What you want to do is to gain a bit of trust, respect and empathy of the prisoner. However this takes a great deal of time and in most cases the information you obtain by this method is only useful in learning how the opposition "acted" in the past. It is less than usefull in obtaining information about current activities.

Physical torture is not an effective method of securing information. As has been pointed out it often leads to misinformation as the detainee makes things up to say just to stop the torture.

However, sleep deprivation disorientates the captive and can lead them to make statements inadvertantly that disclose information they are trying to conceal.

Lets ask John McCain, who was beaten regularly during his internment by the North Vietnamese his definition of torture and see if sleep deprivation qualifies. His opinion I would trust since he has experienced methods much harsher than loss of regular sleep and fear.

My question is

How would YOU react to the "ticking bomb" question?

How would you go about obtaining information in a quick manner if it was Your Families life on the line? Beg them to tell you? Plead?

Really I would be interested to know what each of you would do to save the lives of your loved ones.

Lets say you have 10 terrorists and you know that at least one of them has information about a nuclear bomb thats concealed somewhere one of ten cities and each city involved has either one of your Parents, one of your Siblings, one of your Children or your spouse.

You only have 12 hours to obtain the information and stop the bomb and you can not evacuate the cities in time to save any of your loved ones.

What do You do?

There has to be some way to extract information. Sleep deprivation seems like the most humane way to go.

And what if there is no information to extract? When does one stop? And how will the victim cope psychologically?

How would YOU react to the "ticking bomb" question?

How would you go about obtaining information in a quick manner if it was Your Families life on the line? Beg them to tell you? Plead?

Really I would be interested to know what each of you would do to save the lives of your loved ones.

Lets say you have 10 terrorists and you know that at least one of them has information about a nuclear bomb thats concealed somewhere one of ten cities and each city involved has either one of your Parents, one of your Siblings, one of your Children or your spouse.

You only have 12 hours to obtain the information and stop the bomb and you can not evacuate the cities in time to save any of your loved ones.

What do You do?

Opens up an ethical dilema.

When are the rights of an individual ignored?

Is it when a loved one is at risk?
Is it when there are more than 10, 100, 1000, 1000000 people at risk?
Is it when financial considerations are taken into account?
Is it possible risk?
Does it depend on urgency?
Does it depend on the rank of the "informant"?

Opens up an ethical dilema.

*nods* And a scary one at that. I am so glad I dont have to answer that question in real life.

When are the rights of an individual ignored?

The Ideal answer is: Never.

The real answer is that it depends upon the situation. Something you can never anticipate.

Cant recall the name of the Major in Iraq who "interrogated" a captive and while questioning the captive fired two bullets into the ground.

While this is a deplorable tactic it resulted in the captive revealing the location and time of a planned ambush. This action undoubtedly saved the lives of some of the occupational forces.

The Major was court matialed. I did not hear what his sentence was. But based on the UCMJ it could have been anything from Dishonorable Discharge to Death

Is it when a loved one is at risk?

I think this should be allowable, however, Governments dont have Loved Ones.

An individual faced with this delima must answer it for themselves.

*glances at the 8 year old asleep in my bed and sighs*

For myself, I would do anything to save the lives of my Sons (one an 8 year old who has nightmares), my Daughters, my Wife, my Father, Mother, or any of my loved ones.

When it was done I would joyfully accept the judgement passed upon me for my actions if by those actions I saved their lives

Is it when there are more than 10, 100, 1000, 1,000,000 people at risk?

Is one life more precious than another? I can not answer that, I wish I could. :(

I know I believe that a child's life is more precious than a grown person's. If given the choice between saving two strangers, one adult and one infant I will save the infant. I think this is hardwired in the human race. It definetely seems like it would be a survival trait.

Is it when financial considerations are taken into account?

* I * believe that money should never be a consideration in this situation, no matter what the amount

Is it possible risk?

Yeah, I think that has to be part of it.

Say that during inprocessing of a detainee they set off a chemical weapons warning system.

Since this person had at least the residue of a chemical weapon on his person you now face the possibility that he knows where the weapon is and when it is to be used.

You can possibly take the risk of just sounding the alarm and locking the prisoner up and attempting to find the weapon yourself

Does it depend on urgency?

And here is the other part of it,

If the captive inadvertantly says, or boasts that the weapon is to be used soon. Well then you would have to decide for yourself.

As a matter of Policy, (that cold hearted beast) I would say that No, risk and urgency shouldnt be a factor,

But they are arent they?

Does it depend on the rank of the "informant"?

No, I wouldnt think so, but again I think you would have to base it on the situation.

Can you sacrifice dozens of lives, hundreds, thousands, or even one life if by taking actions you find repugnent you can save them?

As I said I am so glad I dont have to answer these in real life. Because if I did I fear I would become indistinguishable from the monsters I am fighting.

Be well

AAhhzz

Sleep Deprivation is inhumane, and what they do WHILE the hoods are on makes it illegal, plus, they haven't even denied putting hoods on people at Guantanimo, then putting them on a table, and filling the hood with water to simulate drowning.

This doesn't look like a very professional website though.

Sleep deprivation, hoods, loud white noise, and "uncomfortable positions" are standard techniques in European militaries, especially the French and British.

The French SDECE is especially notorious for torturing people with far more serious means than those.

I think that the reason we don't see more outcry from official governments, and outright actions to stop these techniques, is because the majority of nations already do these things - in some cases, to their own citizens (I'm thinking in this case of the UK, who still have no problem doing this to IRA suspects).

Any Questions?

No, but it does make me chuckle every time I read someone picking apart the Geneva Convention to prove that the Taliban held in captivity and various insurgents and whatnot have no right to claim protection by Geneva Convention rules.

Why? Because if the American Revolution were to happen today just as it did in the late 1700s, the people of the US would not be able to claim Geneva Convention protections.

Just amuses me is all.

Damn freedom figh ... err revolut ... err terrorists! That's it ... terrorists!

There wasn't a Geneva Convention during the American Revolution, and people were tortured and hung, and there were reprisals (burning of civilian houses), and other abuses, some of which are addressed in the Declaration of Independence (abuse was happenning before the revolution even started).

For all the people who argue that it is ok to torture an enemy prisoner to save the lives of a few people from your country, why would it be any different if they did it to you? An American torturing an Iraqi to find information is exactly the same as an Iraqi torturing an American to find information. Torture is not justifiable under any circumstances.

For all the people who argue that it is ok to torture an enemy prisoner to save the lives of a few people from your country, why would it be any different if they did it to you? An American torturing an Iraqi to find information is exactly the same as an Iraqi torturing an American to find information. Torture is not justifiable under any circumstances.

So what is torture then?

Let's put you in the following thought exercise.

You're someone fighting in a war. You are captured, along with four of your fellow soldiers. Your captors blindfold you, and put you aboard a helicopter.

During the flight, they say they're going to ask questions, and to ensure that you know they mean business, you hear them throw one of your fellow soldiers out of the helicopter.

Whether or not you end up talking, is this torture?

Afterwards, they take off the blindfold. You discover that the helicopter has been hovering five feet off the ground, and your fellow soldier is perfectly OK.

Um...I think Fox is a better source than CBS, because Fox didn't make false reports.

Not going to argue on the question if Fox tells outright lies as its owner sees fit. I am just going to point out that a newschannel can very effectively distort the truth by omitting some facts and emphasising others in their 'fair and balanced' reports or by suggesting there is a relation between two things without actually saying it. And IMO some of Fox columnists are pretty darn good at that.

To the person that asked to stop discussing politics.. this is the nationstates forum. Of course people are discussing a central theme of the game.

As to the "is sleep deprivation torture" question.. of course it is. After a few days you will be malleable. Say anything people want to know just to get some sleep. How would you feel afterwards if you were this way forced to betray your friends, lover, god or country ? Pretty bad ? Now imagine what it is like for someone who was raised in the belief your honour is more important than your life.

From the memo: "including sleep deprivation, stress positions, attack dogs, and use of hoods to intimidate prisoners"

None of that is torture, and these terrorists aren't subject to the Geneva Convention. At best, these guys are classified as spies and sabateurs under the rules of war. That entitles them to a quick execution only.

Sleep deprivation is used on US troops during training. Air Force pilots are strapped into a cockpit seat and then dropped into a pool to simulate drowning. CIA agents have to go through the same interrogation techniques (eg. hooding) in their training. If the US can legally do it to our own soldiers, it ain't torture.

What's mentioned in this memo is no more than proper interrogation techniques.

If you attend survival, evasion, resistance, and escape schools in the UK, Germany or the US, you WILL be beaten and starved. You will be sleep deprived. You will be subjected to constant light and loud noise. They will show you what it's like to be broken by modern techniques.

No, but it does make me chuckle every time I read someone picking apart the Geneva Convention to prove that the Taliban held in captivity and various insurgents and whatnot have no right to claim protection by Geneva Convention rules.

Why? Because if the American Revolution were to happen today just as it did in the late 1700s, the people of the US would not be able to claim Geneva Convention protections.

Just amuses me is all.

Damn freedom figh ... err revolut ... err terrorists! That's it ... terrorists!

*smiles*

Back then there were not rules governing the conduct of warfare to minimize the suffering of the civilian population caused by war. Its doubtful that there was much consideration for "suffering" of enemy soldiers captured.

Now there are.

And there is that catchy little phrase "War is Hell" It means that war isnt a nice cheerful walk in the park. Or had you not noticed?

Still have questions?

I note you didnt answer the ethical question posed.

What would You do to save thelives of your family, or considering that your relationship with your family may not be all that close, (so many relationships are strained), your loved ones.

I smell My Gun Not Yours...

No, but it does make me chuckle every time I read someone picking apart the Geneva Convention to prove that the Taliban held in captivity and various insurgents and whatnot have no right to claim protection by Geneva Convention rules.

Why? Because if the American Revolution were to happen today just as it did in the late 1700s, the people of the US would not be able to claim Geneva Convention protections.

Just amuses me is all.

Damn freedom figh ... err revolut ... err terrorists! That's it ... terrorists!

Classic example of ignorance of history. Yes, US troops were poorly armed and often without uniforms in the early battles of the Revolution. BUT, they also had "identifying features" to signify them as combatants. Namely marching in a big square shoulder to shoulder with hundreds of others with banners, drums and what not.

Also, one of the first things von Stueben extracted from a penny pinching revolutionary government was uniforms. So, by 1778, virtually all Colonial forces would have been easily recognizable as combat forces under a convention that did not yet exist.

Now then, if you want to consider British actions of burning down houses of suspected patriot sympathizers, that's another story... Let's just say the Americans during the Revolution and the British forces of the time were both a lot more civilized than the insurgents in Iraq.

First off, to Isles of Wohlstand: I'm sorry your family and friends are going through that. I (caucasian) have several middle eastern and Islamic friends. They go through some of the same scrutiny. That said, I am all for profiling and so are they (three of them are US Military). Some comedian said it best, if 6' tall, blonde hair and blue eyed Norwegians were bombing our buildings I'd be more conspicuous of them too. Unfortunately, it's middle eastern people right now so they are screened closer. If you and yours are being predjudiced against, again, I apologise.

As to torture, the incidences John Browning mentions with the helicopter took place in Vietnam. One VC was actually thrown out and killed. Then the rest were blindfolded, taken up, then back down to a hover at about 5' AGL, and the next was pushed out. From what my father told me, he came out with information that saved the lives of countless US troops. I'm all for it.

In some instances, torture isn't used to get information from the one being tortured, but from the next guy in line! Kind of the whole, "the fear of pain/death is worse than the real thing". It works. As mentioned before, several areas of the US and other militaries go through SERE schools (three levels, depending on the soldier's job/need: A, B, or C). A friend of mine is an instructor at Bragg. The key principal is that "sooner or later, everyone talks". Then the information is dessiminated from what is said by the other prisoners who, if the jailers are smart, have been kept apart from each other so they don't concoct the same story.

Every military throughout history grows and adapts to the fighting style at hand. 200 years ago, we were lining up and shooting at the enemy and the last man standing won. Imagine if we still did that, especially in Vietnam or in GW1! We're fighting people who don't play by our rules, so to win our rules have to change. That includes the way we derive information from our prisoners. Cruel? Maybe. Inhumane? Possibly. Evil? Not if it brings my friends back home and keeps another 9/11 from happening.

In battle you have two rules of thumb (more actually, but only two I want to discuss) A) Rules of Engagement and B) "situation dictates". You try to fight by the ROEs, but combat is fluid and sometimes you have to make decisions on the fly that contradict your standing orders. The man on trial now for shooting a wounded Iraqi come to mind. These people had just shot at the Marines and killed several of their men and as they came through the supposedly dead combatants, one of them pops up. The Marine yelled "he's not dead!" and shot him. He's on trial because the enemy was wounded and unarmed. Just minutes before he was armed and killing that Marine's friends.

ROE - don't shoot an unarmed/wounded combatant. Situation dictates - the guy was armed recently and playing dead. He may have had a rifle or a bomb and killed more US troops. The Marine took out a perceived threat. Had the media not been there, the Marine would have continued on his job and that would be the end of it until an After Action Report was filed. Because it was on tape, now he's a "bad man" who kills innocent and unarmed Iraqis.

Long winded, I know, but my point is this: in combat, you do what you have to to survive the encounters and (listen, this is key) PROTECT YOUR FELLOW SOLDIERS. If a defiant prisoner is not talking, but may know where the next few IEDs are placed, "persuasion" is needed to get that information and save lives. End of story, right or wrong.

If you're not there you can take the moral high ground and say, "that's not right". If you're an American, you have the right to say that. But if you're not in the shit losing friends then, personally, your opinion doesn't count.

L.A.

PS - to the person who posted about "four man teams moving from rdz to rdz then extraction", you're playing too much SOCOM II and Ghost Recon. It's not like that.

Lets say you have 10 terrorists and you know that at least one of them has information about a nuclear bomb thats concealed somewhere one of ten cities and each city involved has either one of your Parents, one of your Siblings, one of your Children or your spouse.

You only have 12 hours to obtain the information and stop the bomb and you can not evacuate the cities in time to save any of your loved ones.

What do You do?

I'd say, kiss your ass goodbye, since the most important factor in breaking someone psychologically is TIME. It's not moments of pain that gets to people, its constant, repetitive, daily pain that one knows one cannot escape from. If they are a) total fanatics, b) pretty good at resisting pain, c) know they only have to hold out 12 hours to accomplish their goals, there's a real good chance that no amount or type of torture will work in time.

My 2 cents.

I'd say, kiss your ass goodbye, since the most important factor in breaking someone psychologically is TIME. It's not moments of pain that gets to people, its constant, repetitive, daily pain that one knows one cannot escape from. If they are a) total fanatics, b) pretty good at resisting pain, c) know they only have to hold out 12 hours to accomplish their goals, there's a real good chance that no amount or type of torture will work in time.

My 2 cents.

Hate to quote from a TV show plot, but in the series "24" (which is severely flawed, but entertaining) the lead character had a certain amount of time to get information from a terrorist. He put video footage of the terrorist's family in front of him with a live feed, then showed a soldier shooting the man's wife. His children were lined up next. The guy talked. It turned out that they had staged the killing of the wife, and told the guy later that she was okay, but they got the intel. I don't care how strong your beliefs are, there's always a weakness. Exploit that and time becomes less of an issue. Again, the moral majority says this is a "horrible" thing to do. Whatever gets the job done!

L.A.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the number 3 man in Al-Qaeda who was captured in Pakistan by the US, apparently was quite the man for a very short period of time.

Then he sang like a bird. Apparently, he's the main reason that the majority of the existing al-Q leadership has been assassinated or captured.

Not that they can't replace them. But torture works, and even on the hard cases.

Rumor has it that they drowned him repeatedly, pulling him out just as he lost consciousness. He talked on the third try.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the number 3 man in Al-Qaeda who was captured in Pakistan by the US, apparently was quite the man for a very short period of time.

Then he sang like a bird. Apparently, he's the main reason that the majority of the existing al-Q leadership has been assassinated or captured.

Not that they can't replace them. But torture works, and even on the hard cases.

Rumor has it that they drowned him repeatedly, pulling him out just as he lost consciousness. He talked on the third try.
2/5ths is not a majority (Bush exaggerates claim to be 3/5ths or higher)

So looks like torture is not working well.

2/5ths is not a majority (Bush exaggerates claim to be 3/5ths or higher)

So looks like torture is not working well.

According to most people opposed to torture, the number of torture successes should have been zero. The public figure (Bush's, but seemingly accepted unquestioningly by the media here is 75 percent).

Even if you caught one more terrorist, it's a sign that torture works. By most of the arguments I've heard against torture, they should have accidentally arrested my mother.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero released the memo Dec. 20 in New York. That document, a December 2003 FBI internal e-mail, suggests that Bush issued a secret Executive Order authorizing the use of extreme coercive measures in interrogation, including sleep deprivation, stress positions, attack dogs, and use of hoods to intimidate prisoners. The Geneva Convention Against Torture bans all of these practices.
I see nothing wrong with any of that. Plus the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to terrorists.

I see nothing wrong with any of that. Plus the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to terrorists.

Technically, as the only contracting party in this conflict, the US has to make an assessment of whether or not the other non-signatory party is willing to abide by the Convention. Barring that, the other non-signatory party must announce that it is willing to abide by the Convention.

Since the other party has not made such an announcement, and we see the other side continue to violate the provisions of the Convention (particularly by using civilians as human shields in combat, attacking civilian targets explicitly, taking hostages on a regular basis, executing civilians, and terrorizing them publicly (executions on TV), the US is not bound by the Conventions to give them any protections at all.

Legally, the US could shoot them out of hand without a hearing.

Technically, as the only contracting party in this conflict, the US has to make an assessment of whether or not the other non-signatory party is willing to abide by the Convention. Barring that, the other non-signatory party must announce that it is willing to abide by the Convention.

Since the other party has not made such an announcement, and we see the other side continue to violate the provisions of the Convention (particularly by using civilians as human shields in combat, attacking civilian targets explicitly, taking hostages on a regular basis, executing civilians, and terrorizing them publicly (executions on TV), the US is not bound by the Conventions to give them any protections at all.

Legally, the US could shoot them out of hand without a hearing.

Dang Nabbit

I post a 6 page ( in Microsoft Word anyway ) diatribe to make this point and you do it in 3 paragraphs :headbang:

Where did you learn to write?

Great Job :)

AAhhzz
*I have GOT to take some writing classes dang nabbit*

If it means pulling out some fingernails and beating someone to get the information they need to stop killing one American, I say beat the snot out of them!!

Those methods of interrogation aren't torture. They are widely used by Western nations in wartime, which of course doesn't make it okay, but does put it into perspective. (however I don't have sources ready to back this claim up, I'm sure someone else will though, as I'm going to have to log off and study :mad: )
I don't really approve of them, but I can somewhat accept them as necessary in wartime situations.

Ever seen those awful videos of Saddam's interrogation "techniques"? :(

Torture has been proven time and again to be ineffective in gaining intelligence. People are as likely (and generally more so) to tell you what they think you want to hear as they are to tell you the truth. People who know little are more likely to make something major up just to stop whatever is happening than they are to tell you the little they actually do know.

You are much more likely to get viable intelligence simply by repeatedly cross examining a detainee, and comparing their answers to previous answers or the answers of others than you are to get it with torture. There is a reason why the first thing a torturee says when they finally breaks is, "what do you want to know?" You just can't trust their answers.

Torture has been proven time and again to be ineffective in gaining intelligence. People are as likely (and generally more so) to tell you what they think you want to hear as they are to tell you the truth. People who know little are more likely to make something major up just to stop whatever is happening than they are to tell you the little they actually do know.

You are much more likely to get viable intelligence simply by repeatedly cross examining a detainee, and comparing their answers to previous answers or the answers of others than you are to get it with torture. There is a reason why the first thing a torturee says when they finally breaks is, "what do you want to know?" You just can't trust their answers.

Deception works extremely well. But, sometimes you're deceiving the detainee into believing that you're doing horrible things to others. That's not torture, either. It does get results, though.

Torture has been proven time and again to be ineffective in gaining intelligence. People are as likely (and generally more so) to tell you what they think you want to hear as they are to tell you the truth. People who know little are more likely to make something major up just to stop whatever is happening than they are to tell you the little they actually do know.

Odd how popular torture is amoung the Middle eastern countries. Odder still how they all seem to use it.

Wonder if they are all being deceived, You would have thought after a few thousand times of having the information turn up empty they would have caught on to the fact that it doesnt work.

Or maybe,

Pitica, Are you speaking from experience? Were you tortured? Or is this something you have only heard over and over again so it must be true?

To me it seems reasonable that torture would result in inaccurate information.

After all when you torture a person they Should start babbling anything they can think of, true or not, to try and get the pain to stop.

But if thats so why are so many countries willing to do it?

Do you think they do it to get anything they can and try to sort the wheat from the chaff later? Combining and comparing the bits of information from a lot of prisoners to try and find something worth having?

Compared to actual torture sleep deprivation seems not only humane but a practical means of disorientating the prisoner so that they inadvertantly reveal things they would have concealed if they were thinking clearly.

And possibly the captive may not even recall revealing information if they are sufficently disorientated.

Hummmm, I wonder if low levels of carbon dioxide would cause the same effect?

:) Wait a second, Disorientating...Tequilla?...Nahhhh :)

You are much more likely to get viable intelligence simply by repeatedly cross examining a detainee, and comparing their answers to previous answers or the answers of others than you are to get it with torture. There is a reason why the first thing a torturee says when they finally breaks is, "what do you want to know?" You just can't trust their answers.

I agree that this seems a much more likely path to success, thought this is a longer process isnt it?

George Bush is one of the best presidents we have ever had. He never does anything that would not honor God.

*shudders*

Please tell me I detect sarcasm. Unless killing hundreds of innocents while fighting a dishonarble war, wich he lied to start, honors god.

:headbang:

George Bush is one of the best presidents we have ever had. He never does anything that would not honor God.Considering the sort of things that have been done to honor your God in the past, i wouldn't consider that comment a compliment. I don't really care if the post was sarcastic, this message goes out to anyone who agrees with it.

Anyhow, on to the matter of if it is right for America to torture captives.

For:
Whatever price for victory.
It's effective.

Against, then Counters For:
America is a superpower and needs to maintain the face of benevolence.
Torture is just plain sick, wrong, and barbaric.
-
Are you sure you want to include the reputation of America as "the good guy" on the price tag?
It has actually been proven to be ineffective in every way possible other than causing human suffering, which (hopefully) isn't the goal.

For's Counters, then Rebuttal:
We don't care what other people think, we'll just kill them if they disagree.
But terrorists use it, so it's okay for us to use it.
-
We're the good guy! Nobody else can be the good guy because they're different!
Hello, this is the Bush administration! Proof doesn't matter any more, as long as you remember to be a Bible-thumping blowhard!

Get the picture?

First off, its the ACLU...an extremely left wing organization. So to trust anything it says is, laughable.

Secondly the Geneva convention was established for Rules of War between countries. We are not fighting a country are we? We are fighting a terrorist organization. Therefore Geneva conventions ought not to be held as the end all in this case. The Geneva Convention was for a different type of war. We are trying to fight a completely new type of war now.

As for the first part, those of us on the left should be extremely flattered. Apparently only those on the left care about defending someones constitutional rights. We're so generous we even defend the right of the KKK to be protected by the constitution.

Okay, the defenses for the use of torture seem to be-
1) somebody else does it, it's not fair if we can't join in the fun.
2) we didn't absolutely promise we wouldn't (or had our fingers crossed)
3) though it's pretty unlikely, we might actually get some useful info if you don't mind torturing a bunch of innocent guys too

Sounds good. I'm impressed.

As for the first part, those of us on the left should be extremely flattered. Apparently only those on the left care about defending someones constitutional rights.
:rolleyes: Ever hear of libertarians??? ^-_-

George Bush is one of the best presidents we have ever had. He never does anything that would not honor God.
Ever heard that saying; liar liar pants on fire?

You trust the ACLU? YOU FOOL!

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/6260/1/245/



Well now! Not surprising why they would resist releasing it until rights groups invoke FOIA to get it!


first look at who released this the ACLU . and who are they the slightly more fanatic side of the ppl against bush you idiots.

Odd how popular torture is amoung the Middle eastern countries. Odder still how they all seem to use it.

Wonder if they are all being deceived, You would have thought after a few thousand times of having the information turn up empty they would have caught on to the fact that it doesnt work.

Torture has other benefits besides intelligence. It can be an effective way to 'break' an enemy combatant and turn them to your side (counter-intelligence), it can demoralize your enemies (if they know they can be captured and tortured), and most of all (and this is the real reason most hard line dictatorships use it) it inspires fear in those who are not actively opposing you. Saddaam Hussein didn't torture people because of all the great intelligence he was getting. He tortured people because it scared the piss out of the people who weren't yet openly opposing him.

It is still dangerous, as it can have the opposite effect on people who have already decided that their life is unimportant compared to a greater cause.

Pitica, Are you speaking from experience? Were you tortured? Or is this something you have only heard over and over again so it must be true?

There have been many clinical studies done on the subject that have come to this conclusion. A quick google could likely lead to a bunch of results.

But if thats so why are so many countries willing to do it?

See above

Compared to actual torture sleep deprivation seems not only humane but a practical means of disorientating the prisoner so that they inadvertantly reveal things they would have concealed if they were thinking clearly.

Sleep dep is something I have experienced first hand. Anyone who doesn't consider it torture is ignorant of what it's like to still be conscious after 72 hours and having someone smack you to keep you awake. It is not 'humane'.

I agree that this seems a much more likely path to success, thought this is a longer process isnt it?

If the goal is to stop global terrorism, then you want the greatest chance of success, yes? You would not be looking for a 'quick fix' that is not going to produce usable results, and is likely to incite further and extended violence by the opposition.