NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh noes, how could he dare doing that :rolleyes: :

Link (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1479040,00.html)

Soldier lifts lid on Camp Delta

For the first time, an army insider blows the whistle on human rights abuses at Guantánamo

Paul Harris in New York
Sunday May 8, 2005
The Observer

An American soldier has revealed shocking new details of abuse and sexual torture of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay in the first high-profile whistleblowing account to emerge from inside the top-secret base.
Erik Saar, an Arabic speaker who was a translator in interrogation sessions, has produced a searing first-hand account of working at Guantánamo. It will prove a damaging blow to a White House still struggling to recover from the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq.

In an exclusive interview, Saar told The Observer that prisoners were physically assaulted by 'snatch squads' and subjected to sexual interrogation techniques and that the Geneva Conventions were deliberately ignored by the US military.

He also said that soldiers staged fake interrogations to impress visiting administration and military officials. Saar believes that the great majority of prisoners at Guantánamo have no terrorist links and little worthwhile intelligence information has emerged from the base despite its prominent role in America's war on terror.

Saar paints a picture of a base where interrogations of often innocent prisoners have spiralled out of control, doing massive damage to America's image in the Muslim world.

Saar said events at Guantánamo were a disaster for US foreign policy. 'We are trying to promote democracy worldwide. I don't see how you can do that and run a place like Guantánamo Bay. This is now a rallying cry to the Muslim world,' he said.

Saar arrived at Guantánamo Bay in December 2002, and worked there until June 2003. He first worked as a translator in the prisoners' cages. He was then transferred to the interrogation teams, acting as a translator.

Saar's book, Inside the Wire, provides the first fully detailed look inside Guantánamo Bay's role as a prison for detainees the White House has insisted are the 'worst of the worst' among Islamic militants. His tale describes his gradual disillusionment, from arriving as a soldier keen to do his duty to eventually leaving believing the regime to be a breach of human rights and a disaster for the war on terror.

Among the most shocking abuses Saar recalls is the use of sex in interrogation sessions. Some female interrogators stripped down to their underwear and rubbed themselves against their prisoners. Pornographic magazines and videos were also used as rewards for confessing.

In one session a female interrogator took off some of her clothes and smeared fake blood on a prisoner after telling him she was menstruating. 'That's a big deal. It is a major insult to one of the world's biggest religions where we are trying to win hearts and minds,' Saar said.

Saar also describes the 'snatch teams', known as the Initial Reaction Force (IRF), who remove unco-operative prisoners from their cells. He describes one such snatch where a prisoner's arm was broken. In a training session for an IRF team, one US soldier posing as a prisoner was beaten so badly that he suffered brain damage. It is believed the IRF team had not been told the 'detainee' was a soldier.

Staff at Guantánamo also faked interrogations for visiting senior officials. Prisoners who had already been interrogated were sat down behind one-way mirrors and asked old questions while the visiting officials watched.

Saar also describes the effects prolonged confinement had on many of the prisoners. He details bloody suicide attempts and serious mental illnesses. One detainee slashed his wrists with razors and wrote in blood on a wall: 'I committed suicide because of the brutality of my oppressors.'

Saar details a meeting with an army lawyer where linguists, interrogators and intelligence workers at the base were told the Geneva Conventions did not apply to their work as the detainees could not be considered normal prisoners of war. At the end of the meeting the group was told: 'We still intend to treat the detainees humanely, but our purpose is to get any actionable intelligence we can and quickly.'

But Saar said that many, if not most, of the detainees were rarely interrogated at all after their initial arrival. They just sat listlessly in their cells for months on end. He believes that many of them were either simple footsoldiers caught up in the war in Afghanistan or elsewhere, or innocent men sold out to the Americans by local enemies settling a grudge or looking to collect reward money.

Saar accepts that some genuine terrorists have been held at Guantánamo. 'There are individuals there who I hope will never be set free,' he said, but he contends that they are in the minority. 'Overall, it is counter-productive,' he said.

Saar was an enthusiastic supporter of George Bush in the 2000 elections but he has changed his world view after being exposed to Guantánamo Bay. 'I believe in America and American troops,' he said, 'but it has drastically changed my world view and my politics.'

Saar left the army and has become a hate figure for some right-wing groups which say he and his book are unpatriotic. But Saar believes exposing the abuses of Guantánamo will lessen the damage done to America's reputation in the long run. 'The camp is a mistake. It does not need to be that way. There should be a better way, more in line with American morals,' he said.

Unpatriotic lefty loser, should be executed for high treason, pronto! How dare he reveals anything about Gitmo - bah. Revealing the American democracy for what it is...

Okay, this is old. Get a life.

These news are from... today. Thus, not old. :rolleyes:

I've seen it before, but that doesnt make it any less disgusting. I don't know what's worse - the abuse itself or the fact that a lot of people seem not to care.

Seen posts similar to this on other forums and I think I already know where the conversation is going. Just FYI, I know some asshole is going to quote *just* the part about the woman stripped down to their underwear and rubbing against the prisoners, with a post like "OMG LIKE THEY BEHEAD OUR PEOPLE THIS IS HARDLY WORSE WHY ARE THEY COMPLAINING MOST GUYS WOULD KILL FOR CHIX TO DO THAT LOL".

Just so it's known, when that inevitability occurs, I will kill that person.

If that was really a viable option, would it make sense for him to be doing this?

As for sex interrogation, do you have any idea how much an "experience" like that would cost me in Seattle, for even a moderately attractive woman? Nothing's going to make terrorism more popular than free trips to Hedonism IV for all the scruffy virgins who keep clean by rolling around in the dirt outside of their yurt because they've yet to discover the wonders of indoor plumbing.

If Saar doesn't like it, he can go crap on McCarther's grave, it's all his fault anyway.

As for sex interrogation, do you have any idea how much an "experience" like that would cost me in Seattle, for even a moderately attractive woman? Nothing's going to make terrorism more popular than free trips to Hedonism IV for all the scruffy virgins who keep clean by rolling around in the dirt outside of their yurt because they've yet to discover the wonders of indoor plumbing.


I get the feeling all the sex stories were leaked so that the general public would think just that. It downgrades the other stories comming out of the camp to a joke. Then when real stories of torture come out people just think "It cant be all bad, they have strippers and prostitutes laid on."
It was a smart move by the millitary. Just like the barney thing.

"OMG LIKE THEY BEHEAD OUR PEOPLE THIS IS HARDLY WORSE WHY ARE THEY COMPLAINING MOST GUYS WOULD KILL FOR CHIX TO DO THAT LOL".
Did what Kibolonia said counts as that?

Why do you think Muslim women cover themselves? Because it's considered bad to reveal yourself? However, that pales with the blood thing. You're not supposed to touch a women when she is menstruating. It's like a slap in the face of the highest order, there is no equivilant in our culture. It would be like butchering and eating cows in front of a Hindu, probably even worse.

I figure most people have basic knowledge of Hinduism

If that was really a viable option, would it make sense for him to be doing this?

As for sex interrogation, do you have any idea how much an "experience" like that would cost me in Seattle, for even a moderately attractive woman? Nothing's going to make terrorism more popular than free trips to Hedonism IV for all the scruffy virgins who keep clean by rolling around in the dirt outside of their yurt because they've yet to discover the wonders of indoor plumbing.

If Saar doesn't like it, he can go crap on McCarther's grave, it's all his fault anyway.Ya know, I like sex with guys, but a bunch of enemy interragators, no matter how good looking, rubbing all over me, would kinda freak me out.As for the rest of your post, I won't even go there.

I only got one thing to say sbout this, when we went into this war our President was constantly taking about how he hoped Iraq would adhere to the Genevea Conventions. But the US doesn't have to for some reason???
Is the UN suppost to control everyother nation but America so we can do whatever we want or is it suppost to prevent WWIII and a nuclear holocost??
The United States have pissed off a lot of her allies and a lot of muslims with her rediculous invasion of Iraq which had little to do with a terrorist threat and more to do with Bush wanting to get re-elected and wanting to give his oil company a fat chuck of cash for pumping oil out of Iraq. Over 1,500 of MY FELLOW brothers at arms have sacrificed there life for what, not for America securtiy is at an all time low there are believed to be dozens of sleeper cells in America waiting to get there signal to blow shit up agian. Not to better the world, all we have done is alienate oursself from our allies, and made the world less stable and a better place for terrorists to operate (Iraq is a huge traiingin ground for terrorists with all the insurgence, so once agian America has piss poor security procedures). Ok you want to change your views of this damn war go over there and see how pointless and rediculous this war is. Bush is a horrible President that focused more on killing civil rights so the damn christains can have there way and setting grounds for a third World War.

Ein Deutscher'] Revealing the American democracy for what it is...

A facade. A lie. An illusion, an untruth leading to the worst oppression of all, the oppression which leads an individual, a society, a country, a world as a whole to believe they are not being oppressed, the worst oppression of them all because the people believe they are not being oppressed, thus they do not resist it, blinded by either denial or uncaring in the sense it must be done as a matter of course as duty to protect oneselves from 'the enemy'. Like cattle going to a slaughterhouse that deny the stench of blood, death and misery, blind to the horror, deaf to the screams. A tyranny that Hitler, Stalin and Mao could only dream of, and which Orwell predicted in 1984. A eternal war versus an enemy that is rarely seen, a war that preoccupies the human condition into believing they are constantly threatened, so that they accept human rights abuses against others and themselves, abuses that must be commited to stop that threat, and that it is a means to an end, and anyway, who is to stop us?

You are at war with Eurasia, you are always at war with Eurasia. You are at war with Eastasia, you are always at war with Eastasia.
You are at war with Al-Qaeda, you are always at war with Al-Qaeda.

A brave new world, A New World Order. The time is Thirteen O' Clock. The year is 1984 in the year 2005.

Ignorance to this fact is preferred because ignorance is comforting, your freedom is false and is nothing but slavery, you war is continous to achieve peace, and it is a law eternal because:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

The first time I read about this (about five or six months ago) they explained the "menstrual blood." During the session, the man getting interrogated basically closed his eyes and prayed continually doing his best not to respond. The interrogator left, and consulted one of the officers there. She asked how she could essentially cut him off from God, take away his defense. Apparently, the "blood" made the man "unclean" and therefore unfit to speak to Allah.

If these people wish to use their religion as an excuse to make others suffer, well my heart isn't bleeding when their religion is used against them.

If these people wish to use their religion as an excuse to make others suffer, well my heart isn't bleeding when their religion is used against them.

America claims how evil these "terrorists" are but don't you think that doing the same thing back to them makes America equally as evil?

America claims how evil these "terrorists" are but don't you think that doing the same thing back to them makes America equally as evil?

Not forgetting that these people have not been subject to a trial so it is not proven that they are "enemy combatants".

A facade. A lie. An illusion, an untruth leading to the worst oppression of all, the oppression which leads an individual, a society, a country, a world as a whole to believe they are not being oppressed, the worst oppression of them all because the people believe they are not being oppressed, thus they do not resist it, blinded by either denial or uncaring in the sense it must be done as a matter of course as duty to protect oneselves from 'the enemy'. Like cattle going to a slaughterhouse that deny the stench of blood, death and misery, blind to the horror, deaf to the screams. A tyranny that Hitler, Stalin and Mao could only dream of, and which Orwell predicted in 1984. A eternal war versus an enemy that is rarely seen, a war that preoccupies the human condition into believing they are constantly threatened, so that they accept human rights abuses against others and themselves, abuses that must be commited to stop that threat, and that it is a means to an end, and anyway, who is to stop us?

You are at war with Eurasia, you are always at war with Eurasia. You are at war with Eastasia, you are always at war with Eastasia.
You are at war with Al-Qaeda, you are always at war with Al-Qaeda.

A brave new world, A New World Order. The time is Thirteen O' Clock. The year is 1984 in the year 2005.

Ignorance to this fact is preferred because ignorance is comforting, your freedom is false and is nothing but slavery, you war is continous to achieve peace, and it is a law eternal because:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Clever rhetoric. Taken too far.

Despite the fact that the concepts of "freedom" and "democracy" have been largely coopted by the Bush administration to justify the war in Iraq, the terms still have a certain degree of significance. Not only that, but the "boy who cried wolf" attitude exemplified by your post allows Bush to say that "Those fringe liberals are out of touch with American society," and convince everyone he's right. Essentially, get your intellectual jollies on your own time. The more you espouse this, the more powerful the right becomes.

You evil, evil person! How dare you question Dear Leader!

Okay, this is old. Get a life.

What, your sandbox need topping up, bookie?

Clever rhetoric. Taken too far.

Despite the fact that the concepts of "freedom" and "democracy" have been largely coopted by the Bush administration to justify the war in Iraq, the terms still have a certain degree of significance. Not only that, but the "boy who cried wolf" attitude exemplified by your post allows Bush to say that "Those fringe liberals are out of touch with American society," and convince everyone he's right. Essentially, get your intellectual jollies on your own time. The more you espouse this, the more powerful the right becomes.

You have to admit that the war against an abstact noun is beyond Orwellian. I'm not saying that it was definitely conceived in this way, but inventing an enemy that is undefeatable (almost by definition) most likely saw Bush into his second term, and has been used as an excuse in multiple countries to reduce civil rights.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

I'm down with the ideas on this this should be talked about and people should be made aware but when are we going to take the next step. take action to move politicians that believe this is ok out of power. Bush is gone next election but we have an election coming up senators and congressmen lets get the ones that feel this is alright out and out now. to be aware of it is one thing but to just talking about it with out action is just as bad as ignoring it.

Not forgetting that these people have not been subject to a trial so it is not proven that they are "enemy combatants".

that's what the torture is for. duh.

besides, trials are a human rights abuse.

Seen posts similar to this on other forums and I think I already know where the conversation is going. Just FYI, I know some asshole is going to quote *just* the part about the woman stripped down to their underwear and rubbing against the prisoners, with a post like "OMG LIKE THEY BEHEAD OUR PEOPLE THIS IS HARDLY WORSE WHY ARE THEY COMPLAINING MOST GUYS WOULD KILL FOR CHIX TO DO THAT LOL".

Just so it's known, when that inevitability occurs, I will kill that person.

Knock it off. You know threats are not allowed on the boards, even in jest.

It's good to see that not too many people are defending the Administration on this one.

Okay, this is old. Get a life.
Did you even read it?

I only got one thing to say sbout this, when we went into this war our President was constantly taking about how he hoped Iraq would adhere to the Genevea Conventions. But the US doesn't have to for some reason???
Don't you know? No other nation has ever found itself in as bad a situation as America finds itself now, thus anything done by America is justified. :rolleyes:

Just FYI, I know some asshole is going to quote *just* the part about the woman stripped down to their underwear and rubbing against the prisoners, with a post like "OMG LIKE THEY BEHEAD OUR PEOPLE THIS IS HARDLY WORSE WHY ARE THEY COMPLAINING MOST GUYS WOULD KILL FOR CHIX TO DO THAT LOL".
The first time I read about this (about five or six months ago) they explained the "menstrual blood." During the session, the man getting interrogated basically closed his eyes and prayed continually doing his best not to respond. The interrogator left, and consulted one of the officers there. She asked how she could essentially cut him off from God, take away his defense. Apparently, the "blood" made the man "unclean" and therefore unfit to speak to Allah.

If these people wish to use their religion as an excuse to make others suffer, well my heart isn't bleeding when their religion is used against them.
Way to prove his point, Ekland!

hah yah that was funny

As for sex interrogation, do you have any idea how much an "experience" like that would cost me in Seattle, for even a moderately attractive woman? Nothing's going to make terrorism more popular than free trips to Hedonism IV for all the scruffy virgins who keep clean by rolling around in the dirt outside of their yurt because they've yet to discover the wonders of indoor plumbing.


say that again after you watch me piss in your holy water and pour it on you.


so much for basic human rights.

Ein Deutscher']Oh noes, how could he dare doing that :rolleyes: :

Unpatriotic lefty loser, should be executed for high treason, pronto! How dare he reveals anything about Gitmo - bah. Revealing the American democracy for what it is...

You took a serious issue that Americans -- in particular -- should be concerned about and managed to turn it into an easily dismissable insult. :rolleyes:

Perhaps if you took human rights seriously you wouldn't make these issues secondary to your personal agenda.

As for the rest of your post, I won't even go there.
FWIW It's a reference to the constitutional crisis provoked by the war crimes trial in the Phillipines at the end of WWII. The US military essentially deprived many of the Japanese standing trial for war crimes of even the semblence of a defense in a race to the gallows. It even went to the supreme court, where it was ruled (5-4) that the US military could do pretty much what ever it wanted in the Phillipines, as it was not America and out of the court's jurisdiction. The then chief justice, and former Nuremburg prosecutor, dissented; famously writing "we have won the war, but lost our ideals" or something close to the effect.

This decision is the basis for the supreme court rulings, and administration position, that the military can do what ever it wants to these assholes in Cuba so long as they're not American. The Geneva conventions aren't any protection for these guys either. Some readings of it would allow whoever catches them to kill and toss them in a ditch. Clearly, the administration is employing just such a reading. The only protection they *ever* had, and this is a very important lesson for everyone who hates America, was our compassion and ideals. Honestly, as a group, they don't make themselves very pitiable, as they seek to destroy my values and way of life (foot soldier or not).

Honestly, as a group, they don't make themselves very pitiable, as they seek to destroy my values and way of life (foot soldier or not).

but that, of course, assumes they are guilty of anything at all. no pity for those we assume to be our enemies, eh?

FWIW It's a reference to the constitutional crisis provoked by the war crimes trial in the Phillipines at the end of WWII. The US military essentially deprived many of the Japanese standing trial for war crimes of even the semblence of a defense in a race to the gallows. It even went to the supreme court, where it was ruled (5-4) that the US military could do pretty much what ever it wanted in the Phillipines, as it was not America and out of the court's jurisdiction. The then chief justice, and former Nuremburg prosecutor, dissented; famously writing "we have won the war, but lost our ideals" or something close to the effect.

This decision is the basis for the supreme court rulings, and administration position, that the military can do what ever it wants to these assholes in Cuba so long as they're not American.

But that is not what the Supreme Court held ....

The Geneva conventions aren't any protection for these guys either. Some readings of it would allow whoever catches them to kill and toss them in a ditch. Clearly, the administration is employing just such a reading.

Some readings of it are clearly wrong.

Contrary to the direct language and contrary to the opinion of most experts.

The Bush Administration's position -- although wrong -- is also much more complicated.

The only protection they *ever* had, and this is a very important lesson for everyone who hates America, was our compassion and ideals. Honestly, as a group, they don't make themselves very pitiable, as they seek to destroy my values and way of life (foot soldier or not).

Nice. If we don't like you, we can throw away the rulebook.

Perhaps American soldiers would prefer that we set an example of upholding the Geneva Convention rather than send the message that any country can do whatever it wishes to its enemies.

We dishonor our comittments and our ideals by acting as we have.

I have only one thing to say about this.

http://oldbluejacket.com/General_Patton_Message.htm

I have only one thing to say about this.

http://oldbluejacket.com/General_Patton_Message.htm

lol I hope you don't actually take crap like that seriously.

You took a serious issue that Americans -- in particular -- should be concerned about and managed to turn it into an easily dismissable insult. :rolleyes:

Perhaps if you took human rights seriously you wouldn't make these issues secondary to your personal agenda.
This issue has been brought up before so often. It's not like I'm posting about this the first time. It has never been taken seriously, even when I tried to have a serious debate about it. Gitmo is for many Americans excusable in the "war on terror" and thus ignored. My comment below the article is sarcasm, that's all. Since I could foresee the reaction of many people. Although I am surprised that quite a lot of the replies here are serious and not supportive of this atrocity. This gives me hope that things can still change for the better.

lol I hope you don't actually take crap like that seriously.

Do you take the original post seriously?

I have only one thing to say about this.

http://oldbluejacket.com/General_Patton_Message.htm

well that was dumb. especially the limbaugh-inspired dismissal of sexual abuse and rape as harmless fun. and it's not as if we don't also have a growing pile of homocides and acts of physical and mental torture here. the blatant apologetics for torture of people who have never even been officially charged with or accused of being involved in anything at all, let alone convicted, is extremely disturbing. some future truth and reconciliation commission is going to have quite a job for itself.

some future truth and reconciliation comission is going to have quite a job for itself.
What is a "truth and reconciliation commission'?
When I hear "Truth and Reconciliation", I think of the ship from Halo.
:p

well that was dumb. especially the limbaugh-inspired dismissal of sexual abuse and rape as harmless fun. and it's not as if we don't also have a growing pile of homocides and acts of physical and mental torture here. the blatant apologetics for torture of people who have never even been officially charged with or accused of being involved in anything at all, let alone convicted, is extremely disturbing. some future truth and reconciliation commission is going to have quite a job for itself.

Obviously, you did not look at the clip. There was absolutely nothing in it about "limbaugh-inspired dismissal of sexual abuse and rape." There is no apology for torture here as there was no torture involved. Humiliation yes, torture no.

What is a "truth and reconciliation commission'?
When I hear "Truth and Reconciliation", I think of the ship from Halo.
:p

Truth and reconciliation was a...thingy (for want of a better word) headed by Desmond Tutu after the ANC in South Africa took power, to try and remove some of the really anti-white/politicians in the national party hatred that was held amongst the majority of black and coloured South Africans. Kinda like a "can't we all get along" movement started by the ANC.

What is a "truth and reconciliation commission'?
When I hear "Truth and Reconciliation", I think of the ship from Halo.
:p

its a sort of a court that countries sometimes set up after emerging from either dictatorship or some form of internal unrest to figure out who is responsible for what in terms of the violence and attrocities committed earlier. typically they offer amnesty to some people if they are willing to come forward and testify about their activities. the idea is basically that the country has to confront the realities of what happened before they can begin to move on.

Humiliation yes, torture no.

Torture can be defined as an attempt at coercion via the infliction of mental and physical pain. That said, humiliation is degradation and shame; negative feelings that are inflicted upon humans from time to time.
When inflicted purposefully from one human to another, it causes mental anguish and pain.
Humiliation is ergo mental torture.
Addendum, torture is going on at Guantanamo.

Torture can be defined as an attempt at coercion via the infliction of mental and physical pain. That said, humiliation is degradation and shame; negative feelings that are inflicted upon humans from time to time.
When inflicted purposefully from one human to another, it causes mental anguish and pain.
Humiliation is ergo mental torture.
Addendum, torture is going on at Guantanamo.

Do you actually believe that? So by your definition if your boy/girl friend breaks up with you he/she has tortured you because of the mental anguish you have over the breakup. Let's get real here.

Do you actually believe that? So by your definition if your boy/girl friend breaks up with you he/she has tortured you because of the mental anguish you have over the breakup. Let's get real here.

Your counter-argument is flawed. I defined torture as coercion through mental and physical anguish. In the scenario you have outlined, I fail to see where the coercion lies....

Torture can be defined as an attempt at coercion via the infliction of mental and physical pain.

P.S. Here is the definition from dictionary.com. Plese note the word "severe."

1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.

P.S. Here is the definition from dictionary.com. Plese note the word "severe."

1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.

You fail in your definition to include the bottom two definitions after these two...


3.Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
4. Something causing severe pain or anguish.

And in the case of these Muslims, the methods of sexual and religious humiliation inflicted upon them could be regarded as severe, by their standards and not ours. Their standards are all that count since it is their standards that determine when they break.

Obviously, you did not look at the clip. There was absolutely nothing in it about "limbaugh-inspired dismissal of sexual abuse and rape." There is no apology for torture here as there was no torture involved. Humiliation yes, torture no.

the fraternity line comes from a caller to rush's show, which sent him off on the wonders of "blowing off steam"

and yeah, no torture at all. none whatsoever.

http://billandkent.com/albums/abu-gharib-torture-photos/abughraib2.jpg

i'm sure that's just some spilled ketchup on the ground there, and that nice man is going to help the prisoner clean it up...

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/abughraib1.jpg

and i've heard that playing with puppies is actually good for people's mental health, so this is obviously just the soldiers trying to be nice.

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/torture1.jpg

costume party!



and then there was that whole second batch of photos. you know, the ones that rumsfeld himself said "can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman." oh, yeah, and then there's all of the shit that didn't get photographed, that keeps getting reported from just about everybody.

Obviously, you did not look at the clip. There was absolutely nothing in it about "limbaugh-inspired dismissal of sexual abuse and rape." There is no apology for torture here as there was no torture involved. Humiliation yes, torture no.
This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?

This is the sort of thing that frat boys, sorority girls, and military cadets do to newcommers.

Who didn't watch what?

Free Soviets. How nice of you to prove my argument right.

But that is not what the Supreme Court held ....
Effectively, it pretty much was. The supreme court had a chance to correct history, they chose not to, instead preserving the status quo. What's happening now, that's just the status quo the Supreme court sought to preserve.

Some readings of it are clearly wrong.

Contrary to the direct language and contrary to the opinion of most experts.

The Bush Administration's position -- although wrong -- is also much more complicated.
Well that's why plausible deniability was invented, I suppose. And given Alberto Gonzalez's other musings.... Well, we know what he thinks. The Bush administration's position is complex to dissuade public discussion, but fundamentally, it rests on a semantic argument about how the prisoners aren't real soldiers and don't deserve those protections, and the judgment I referred to earlier. What's important to remember here is that while might doesn't make right, it does make things the way they're going to be. If the powerful decide not to grant whatever protections to the powerless people under their dominion, those people are unprotected.

Nice. If we don't like you, we can throw away the rulebook.

Perhaps American soldiers would prefer that we set an example of upholding the Geneva Convention rather than send the message that any country can do whatever it wishes to its enemies.
Personally, I operate on a principal of reciprocal morality. I do unto others as they would do unto me. I'm nice to the nice, generous to the generous, cruel to the cruel. I'm not going to lift a finger to protect from misery the person who wants to bring it to me.

But more specifically on the Geneva Conventions. Were I King, they'd be followed meticulously, and I'd err on the side compassion and generosity. The very idea being to leave no doubt to our moral superiority. Then when things like terrorism happen we can use it as an excuse to write off a people, and do what Genghis Khan would do. But with weapons that reach over the next horizon. I think they're good for that. A mutual agreement between peoples to have a civilized war, so total war will be taken off the table. That is the implicit threat of the conventions. "If you can't abide by these, we're justified in destroying all the people of your nation, not just your armies." That said, only the wealthy nations follow them with any regularity, and by not following them to excess you end up with meaningless debates like this, which essentially deny the benefits of following them at all.

In the end, there isn't any real debate. The powerful *can* do anything they want to those who've been rendered defenseless. No one thinks the powerful *should* do *anything* they want. Only a precious few screwballs, think that they should be the arbiter of what each of the people enjoying their stay a Guantanamo deserves. In the end there are two groups with subjective opinions (the US military can be or cannot be trusted to handle this).

We dishonor our commitments and our ideals by acting as we have.
I think it reveals what our collective ideals truly are. I do think there is some room to debate the finer meaning. But as a whole, there isn't much doubt, this has been going on a long time, under these circumstances, this kind of treatment to these kinds of people is more than acceptable. Chilling, maybe. But given my view of American history, particularly at war, I can't say I'm surprised. Is it uniquely American, or just an expression of our human nature and legacy as the preeminent predator? Meh, I've my suspicions. In the end we sit in judgement of the judges, congressmen, predisidents, and tyrants; we all have the government we deserve.

the fraternity line comes from a caller to rush's show, which sent him off on the wonders of "blowing off steam"

and yeah, no torture at all. none whatsoever.

http://billandkent.com/albums/abu-gharib-torture-photos/abughraib2.jpg

i'm sure that's just some spilled ketchup on the ground there, and that nice man is going to help the prisoner clean it up...

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/abughraib1.jpg

and i've heard that playing with puppies is actually good for people's mental health, so this is obviously just the soldiers trying to be nice.
http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/torture1.jpg
costume party!



and then there was that whole second batch of photos. you know, the ones that rumsfeld himself said "can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman." oh, yeah, and then there's all of the shit that didn't get photographed, that keeps getting reported from just about everybody.
Abu Ghirab != Guantanamo Bay.

Abu Ghirab != Guantanamo Bay.

The only difference between the two is that one was supposedly not sanctioned by the US government while the other most certainly is...

Abu Ghirab != Guantanamo Bay.

that was specifically in response to the silly claims made in that dumb flash animation celtlund posted, which itself used the abu ghraib photos.

and it's not like guantanamo is any better - the torture happy freaks there beat one of their own guys bad enough to give him brain damage, because nobody told them it was a training exercise.

Torture can be defined as an attempt at coercion via the infliction of mental and physical pain. That said, humiliation is degradation and shame; negative feelings that are inflicted upon humans from time to time.
When inflicted purposefully from one human to another, it causes mental anguish and pain.
Humiliation is ergo mental torture.
Addendum, torture is going on at Guantanamo.
Than what sort of questioning isn't torture?
Sleep deprivation is mental pain inflicted to coerce information out of prisoners. That makes sleep deprivation wrong.
Loud music is physical pain meant to coerce info out of prisoners. So that can't be done.
You could even argue imprisonment is mental pain inflicted to coerce cooperation. So you can't do that.
What sort of method could be used to get information out of prisoners that is morally acceptable to you?

torture happy freaks

i take this back. the stanford prison experiment showed that it's the institutional power relations, not the individuals, that are ultimately to blame.

The excuse the right has used for this, (more or less "Fuck em, they'd do the same to us.")Might be acceptable IF any of these guys had been given trials. Most of the people in guantanamo are being held with no reason to believe that they are terrorists than the fact that they are there. Many were just in the wrong place, or just happened to back the wrong side. Many were reported by neighbors who just happened to dislike them. So think about that when you say your prayers at night, that innocent people are being tortured (If a beating until brain damage is induced is not torture, nothing is.) by the administration that you back.

Personally, I operate on a principal of reciprocal morality. I do unto others as they would do unto me. I'm nice to the nice, generous to the generous, cruel to the cruel. I'm not going to lift a finger to protect from misery the person who wants to bring it to me. Your ethical standpoint is neither principaled nor moral. Allowing others to set the standard of your conduct is a reactive approach and intellectually lazy.
But more specifically on the Geneva Conventions. Were I King, they'd be followed meticulously, and I'd err on the side compassion and generosity. The very idea being to leave no doubt to our moral superiority. Then when things like terrorism happen we can use it as an excuse to write off a people, and do what Genghis Khan would do. But with weapons that reach over the next horizon. I think they're good for that. A mutual agreement between peoples to have a civilized war, so total war will be taken off the table. That is the implicit threat of the conventions. "If you can't abide by these, we're justified in destroying all the people of your nation, not just your armies." That said, only the wealthy nations follow them with any regularity, and by not following them to excess you end up with meaningless debates like this, which essentially deny the benefits of following them at all. Agreements like the Geneva convention aren't negotiated so that we can claim "moral superiority" and pat ourselves on the back over our own goodness. Human Rights Conventions are enacted because we have determined that human life has value, and as such we have decided that there are some lines that are not to be crossed. People who do cross those lines are to be arrested, charged and tried in a manner that doesn't contravene their rights. If found guilty they are removed from society. Your description of the implicit threat within the conventions is a rediculous fabrication, nothing in the Geneva Conventions allows a person or people to be stripped of their rights. Given the US conduct in Iraq and Viet Nam I would like you to demonstrate that wealthy nations follow the GC with any more reliability than poorer nations.
I think it reveals what our collective ideals truly are. I do think there is some room to debate the finer meaning. But as a whole, there isn't much doubt, this has been going on a long time, under these circumstances, this kind of treatment to these kinds of people is more than acceptable. Chilling, maybe. But given my view of American history, particularly at war, I can't say I'm surprised. Is it uniquely American, or just an expression of our human nature and legacy as the preeminent predator? Meh, I've my suspicions. In the end we sit in judgement of the judges, congressmen, predisidents, and tyrants; we all have the government we deserve. These last statements are valid if and only if you believe that policy makers in the US actually represent the will of their constituents. Given the outright lies and obfuscations of the Bush Administration, the Blair Government and the medias unwillingness or inability to hold these two epic liars to account, I find that assertion laughable. Hell, the majority of the US population still believes that Saddam had WMD and connections to Al-Queda, despite the findings of the Iraqi Survey Group.

Okay, this is old. Get a life.

LOL, seems like the rightwing is running out of ways to shut down the argument. You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one, Bookworms.

I have only one thing to say about this.

http://oldbluejacket.com/General_Patton_Message.htm
General Patton the fascist?

Summary:

Liberals don't think that 9/11, beheadings, etc are atrocities.

All Muslims are jihad terrorists.

:rolleyes:

No wonder people like Bush get in when people base their foreign policy opinions on paranoid primal instincts.

Do you take the original post seriously?
Erik Saar is serious.

Than what sort of questioning isn't torture?
Sleep deprivation is mental pain inflicted to coerce information out of prisoners. That makes sleep deprivation wrong.
Loud music is physical pain meant to coerce info out of prisoners. So that can't be done.
You could even argue imprisonment is mental pain inflicted to coerce cooperation. So you can't do that.
What sort of method could be used to get information out of prisoners that is morally acceptable to you?

The methods being applied on proven terrorists and enemy combatants are not the problem, so much as they are being applied on Muslims picked up off the streets of Afghanistan and Iraq without any proof them being either of the forementioned categories. The Bush Administration blanketing all these unfortunate people as "enemy combatants" is a callous statement to anyone in the Muslim World who may have even briefly contemplated helping out America on top of the sacriligeous interrogation methods that are being reported.

The methods being applied on proven terrorists and enemy combatants are not the problem, so much as they are being applied on Muslims picked up off the streets of Afghanistan and Iraq without any proof them being either of the forementioned categories. The Bush Administration blanketing all these unfortunate people as "enemy combatants" is a callous statement to anyone in the Muslim World who may have even briefly contemplated helping out America on top of the sacriligeous interrogation methods that are being reported.
I'm not disputing that, Gauthier. I don't want innocent people imprisoned whether they're white, black, muslim, christian, atheist, or jew.
Kirol, though, seems to find any sort of practical interrogation methods unethical. I'd like to know what kinds of techniques he'd allow against even proven terrorists.

Than what sort of questioning isn't torture?
Sleep deprivation is mental pain inflicted to coerce information out of prisoners. That makes sleep deprivation wrong.
Loud music is physical pain meant to coerce info out of prisoners. So that can't be done.
You could even argue imprisonment is mental pain inflicted to coerce cooperation. So you can't do that.
What sort of method could be used to get information out of prisoners that is morally acceptable to you?

How about asking them plain and simple?
How about tricking them with logic?
How about negotiating?
Interrogators at Guantanamo have not exactly exhausted all the possibilities.

In the end, it is also worth noting that most of the inmates are in fact merely conscripts, what possible information would they possess?

Clever rhetoric. Taken too far.

Nope. It's the 'enemy of the state' rhetoric used to justify human rights abuses that has been taken too far.



Despite the fact that the concepts of "freedom" and "democracy" have been largely coopted by the Bush administration to justify the war in Iraq, the terms still have a certain degree of significance.


The concept of "freedom" and "democracy" again, is a facade. It has been used to justify the war on Iraq, but such a thing no longer exists. Perhaps this is what is meant by "The American Dream" now, that what America aimed to be, a beacon of light for liberty, is a dream, and nothing more. Something that is unreachable because of the harsh manipulation used to create reality.





Not only that, but the "boy who cried wolf" attitude exemplified by your post allows Bush to say that "Those fringe liberals are out of touch with American society," and convince everyone he's right.


I certainly have not cried wolf. And what you say Bush will say, he says anyway, and convinces everyone he's right because they don't want to believe the truth, It is too horrible to contemplate, it would rock their foundations.


Essentially, get your intellectual jollies on your own time. The more you espouse this, the more powerful the right becomes.

I do not get any 'jollies' out of this, for it is depressing reality. The right are powerful anyway, guiding the sheep to leap off the cliffs. But that power does not mean it can be overcome, although I dare say you don't help matters by seemingly agreeing with me but saying "ooh" "ahhh" and backing out when the truth becomes too harsh for your ears too hear, and your eyes to see.

Which is understandable, because in this case, the truth hurts.

I've seen it before, but that doesnt make it any less disgusting. I don't know what's worse - the abuse itself or the fact that a lot of people seem not to care.

I personally do not care what happens to the people at Guantanamo. I do not believe that we are in a battle to "win hearts and minds" nor do I think that we could win the hearts and minds of the men who follow Bin Laden unless we shot all non-Muslims, put our women in head to toe blue bags, and killed every musician and film star (and burned all the DVDs, erased all the tapes and MP3s), and used our sports stadiums to execute people who flew kites and listened to music.

So I don't care what happens to them. Something we're doing in the interrogation area is producing results.

How about asking them plain and simple?
How about tricking them with logic?
How about negotiating?
Interrogators at Guantanamo have not exactly exhausted all the possibilities.
Riiiiight. Logic and negotiation. These are guys who plow planes into buildings safe in the knowlege a dozen virgins will be their reward in the afterlife. These are men who want nothing short of the total destruction of Israel. Logic will work real good.
And how do you know logic and negotiation haven't been tried? Have you been there every moment?
In the end, it is also worth noting that most of the inmates are in fact merely conscripts, what possible information would they possess?
I don't know, you don't know, the interrogators don't know. That's why they're interrogated. Sure, they might just be grunts, but who knows what sort of intel they might have.

Riiiiight. Logic and negotiation. These are guys who plow planes into buildings safe in the knowlege a dozen virgins will be their reward in the afterlife. These are men who want nothing short of the total destruction of Israel. Logic will work real good.
And how do you know logic and negotiation haven't been tried? Have you been there every moment?

I don't know, you don't know, the interrogators don't know. That's why they're interrogated. Sure, they might just be grunts, but who knows what sort of intel they might have.

Well regardless, whether we need to interrogate these prisoners is in serious doubt. This is due in part to the structure of the Al Qaeda organisation which is organised much along the same lines as the Maquis during the Second World War; a system of cells that very rarely interacts with each other.
It is widely believed that the cell that was behind September 11th acted on its own initiative with the vague directive of jihad against the US; that Osama Bin Laden is nothing but the money-man as leader.
If this cell structure is true, then interrogation is futile as the prisoners would have out of date information and would know nothing of the activities of the other cells. Why bother to interrogate them?

Riiiiight. Logic and negotiation. These are guys who plow planes into buildings safe in the knowlege a dozen virgins will be their reward in the afterlife. These are men who want nothing short of the total destruction of Israel. Logic will work real good.

You don't know that. In fact, we know that some of these men are NOT what you paint them to be.

You don't know that. In fact, we know that some of these men are NOT what you paint them to be.

And some of them are. Can't tell one from the other without asking a few questions, and being sure of the answers.

So I don't care what happens to them. Something we're doing in the interrogation area is producing results.
Results? Yes, creating martyrs and increasing terrorist recruitment. Seriously, how reliable can information gathered through torture be? Haven't we developed better intelligence methods since the middle ages?

Results? Yes, creating martyrs and increasing terrorist recruitment. Seriously, how reliable can information gathered through torture be? Haven't we developed better intelligence methods since the middle ages?
Not to mention that we KNOW that information gleaned from torture is unreliable at best.

I love how an opportunist writes a book and all of a sudden, he is speaking the truth.
If you want to believe whatever is written in books, I guess this suits you fine.
I hope we dont all have to take everything written in books now as true.

I'm sure this "whistleblower" author feels so terribly about whats allegedly happening there, that he will use the proceeds of his sales to fight against it.

I love how an opportunist writes a book and all of a sudden, he is speaking the truth.
If you want to believe whatever is written in books, I guess this suits you fine.
I hope we dont all have to take everything written in books now as true.

I'm sure this "whistleblower" author feels so terribly about whats allegedly happening there, that he will use the proceeds of his sales to fight against it.
It's not like it radically contradicts other sources, like statements from former prisoners. But I guess it is easier to deny everything and sleep well at night, istead of getting to the bottom of things.

It's not like it radically contradicts other sources, like statements from former prisoners. But I guess it is easier to deny everything and sleep well at night, istead of getting to the bottom of things.

but then again, why would you automatically believe the former prisoners? Do you really consider them unbiased and not apt to lie? They aren't exactly overjoyed about being kept there.

This whole argument is just like dogs chasing each others tail. . .or something vaguely like that.

but then again, why would you automatically believe the former prisoners? Do you really consider them unbiased and not apt to lie? They aren't exactly overjoyed about being kept there.

This whole argument is just like dogs chasing each others tail. . .or something vaguely like that.
That's true, but I haven't heard anyone say that the prisoners are being treated well. Maybe they should just be given a fair trial. ;)

It's not like it radically contradicts other sources, like statements from former prisoners. But I guess it is easier to deny everything and sleep well at night, istead of getting to the bottom of things.

I dont deny anything-I'm not there, and I dont know anyone there. I dont know if torture or humilation are reliable ways to get accurate info.
Lets not pretend that the place is full of innocents, just snatched off the street while they were going about their day to day routine. If you'd believe that,your far too simple.
I see someone fanning flames for personal profit.

That's true, but I haven't heard anyone say that the prisoners are being treated well. Maybe they should just be given a fair trial. ;)

Fair trial? There exists such a thing? ;)

That's true, but I haven't heard anyone say that the prisoners are being treated well. Maybe they should just be given a fair trial. ;)

Dont tell me if you heard someone say they were being treated well, you would give that statement any consideration.
A 'fair trial" ? Should we use their standards of fair? It wouldnt be right to impose a western democracy's standard of fair on them.

Fair trial? There exists such a thing? ;)


No way in hell where they're from.

America claims how evil these "terrorists" are but don't you think that doing the same thing back to them makes America equally as evil?
We haven't been beheading them with a dull knife on camera as they plead for their lives. I'd say we're going pretty easy on them.

Dont tell me if you heard someone say they were being treated well, you would give that statement any consideration.
A 'fair trial" ? Should we use their standards of fair? It wouldnt be right to impose a western democracy's standard of fair on them.
What was that term? Foreign combatatnts? Meaning they wern't from Afganistan, several were from Europe. One was from Sweden (his family from Afganistan originally) and I think he was visiting Afganistan. Guess he wasn't that dangerous since he got released.

As for the standards of fair. I guess everyone has their own, but you can't claim the moral high ground if you stoop to the lower standads of your enemies.

As for the standards of fair. I guess everyone has their own, but you can't claim the moral high ground if you stoop to the lower standads of your enemies.
True, and as soon as we start targeting innocent children and women for our bombs as well as behead terrorists after making them make a statement renouncing their faith in a camera and then distributing the video we will have sunk to the standards of our enemies.

True, and as soon as we start targeting innocent children and women for our bombs as well as behead terrorists after making them make a statement renouncing their faith in a camera and then distributing the video we will have sunk to the standards of our enemies.

Because of course every single detainee at guantanamo bay has been proved to blow up kids and behead foreigners in their spare time. :rolleyes: You're right, we should just accept that being locked up and interrogated without trial, denied contact with families or lawyers, being sexually abused and stripped of basic human rights is more than these evil foreign muslim types deserve. After all, we all know they like to toast innocent christian kids in their spare time. :headbang:

...Something we're doing in the interrogation area is producing results.so they say (they being the Pentagon)...

Problem is "they" dot have much credibility.

"they" just said they caugth No.3

...but I am not ready to take their word for it.

I will try not to be inflammatory with this but I am a bit amazed at some of these arguments.

Supposing the archetypical right wing stereotype I can easily pronounce judgment on the enemy as they are immoral. They repress their women, behead our people, and do all sorts of nasty things that I cannot abide. I deem all of these things to be unacceptable, so the war effort is justified.

Now we are accumulating prisoners and have to deal with the implications of that. The United States government is torturing these people as they require the information that they posses. The latter is a fair assessment. Now my justification for turning a blind eye to the torture is the fact that they do the same to us.

Wait. We kill them because they do evil things, like torture if they have the chance. So we torture them when we get the chance. This seems to me like it’s a circular argument and allows no real moral judgments to be made.

This also makes me wonder. The German’s gassed about six million Jews in WWII so would it have been ethical to gas six million less one German POWs?

As to the definition of torture. I understand the need for certain extra judicial practices in the time of war, after all their unpleasant experience may serve to limit American casualties. The question is not, can we engage in this activity, as much as it is a discernment of degree. We need to extract this information but how far are we willing to go?

To me there are two main points that determine where the line is. One, how does this affect our soldiers? When the war is all said and done and they come back to their regular lives can they continue to be stable human beings insofar as they have the proper mechanisms to cope with obstacles? How much respect are these people going to be able to give an employer who happens to be an Iraqi immigrant? What if he’s Kuwaiti or Saudi? Can he determine the difference? Are these people going to have nightmares down the road regarding what they’ve done? When the heat of the moment is gone and they no longer have the imminent threat to justify it will they feel as though their soul is clean? I am no theologiest and I postulate more than philosophize but is there not some element of mental break down in regarding certain human beings as torture worthy?

Second; We have to ask why this is a moral debate in the first place. We offer certain protections to our own citizens and talk about human right but the question is, is it a human right or a western right? Any argument that negates the rights of these prisoners has the possibility of overcoming the arguments for our own civil liberties. Supposing you can rationally, logically, and methodically eliminate any counter argument for this torture how difficult would it be for someone to apply your argument to a domestic situation. Thomas Jefferson comment once about where the line should be drawn and he favored excess, as it would allow for greater protection for those who needed said protection legitimately. It seems a terrible shame that because we are not willing to let 100 guilty men out of our grasp thousands must suffer.

(Now on a mildly related note does anyone know the name of the catholic priest in Germany who said something to the effect of he didn’t protest when they came for the Jews, he didn’t protest when they came for the dissidents, and there was no one left to protest when they came for him?)

I think one of the problems with the argument is that it, like most ethical debates, tends towards the personal code of the debater. If the lot of you were truly interested in having a productive academic discussion on the morality of this you’d have to decide what the code of morals was that you wanted to argue by. Otherwise your debate suffers from systemic retardation. Think Utilitarian vs. Kantian to catch my meaning. (Moral good defined by what brings the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people vs. The categorical imperative’s definition of a moral law)

We haven't been beheading them with a dull knife on camera as they plead for their lives. I'd say we're going pretty easy on them.

we have beaten some of them to death though.... I think I might prefer getting my head cut off to being struck over and over again until I bleed to death internally

so they say (they being the Pentagon)...

Problem is "they" dot have much credibility.

"they" just said they caugth No.3

...but I am not ready to take their word for it.

You will notice that the ones who appeared useless to the Pentagon were released.

Whether or not you believe in the results is your opinion. The fact appears to be that one interrogation leads to other captures who in turn are interrogated and give up more names.

al-Libbi is evidently already talking, in addition to having his notebook on his person. Then again, he's in a Pakistani prison, where the treatment is probably orders of magnitude more horrific than anything that took place at Guantanamo.

IIRC, the Pakistani method involves crushing the knuckles of fingers to get answers. That's probably why he sang so quickly - and why they were able to catch even more men within 24 hours of al-Libbi's capture.

Whether or not you believe in the results is your opinion. The fact appears to be that one interrogation leads to other captures who in turn are interrogated and give up more names.

This is precisely why torture doesn't always work so well. If you were randomly picked off the street, assumed to be guilty and tortured/harshly interrogated until you gave up the names of other people, chances are you'd give in and give them the names of your neigbours you least like, just to make it stop. Then the neighbours are bought in, give up more names...

Of course torture gets you names. But not necessarily the right names.

OK, just a short comment,

Firstly about Islam, well guess what, it's actually not an aggresive religion (why the hell would first Islamic countires and empires leave the christians to LIVE inside their countries) so jihad is actually meant as a defence if someone is trying to deprive you of your religion. Next thing the collum about compassion is second to "belive in one god and pray every day" collum so firstly compassion then war. This is only to tell you that MOST of the Muslims are not aggresive terrorists trying to destroy our way of life.

OK, now to the people that are doing those things, they are FUNDAMENTALISTS. I agree they did a lot of bad things, but does that mean that mean we treat every muslim the same? Well we don't all the christians just becouse christian fundamentalists have done some bad things, why do we treat others that way? So trials based only on your religious or even worst national identity can not be accepted.

The next thing I would like to ask you, would you agree with putting you in prison, then torturing you to conffess that you killed someone you actually didn't just becouse your neighbour said you did it? I didn't think so.

If they would make trials public and obiding the geneva convetion I would not oppose it, no matter if the stories about abuses are true or not, they are closed, they reveal no information, the prisioners are there on no real legal basic, so my morals and logic command me to oppose.

Greetings

This is precisely why torture doesn't always work so well. If you were randomly picked off the street, assumed to be guilty and tortured/harshly interrogated until you gave up the names of other people, chances are you'd give in and give them the names of your neigbours you least like, just to make it stop. Then the neighbours are bought in, give up more names...

Of course torture gets you names. But not necessarily the right names.

You have a grave misconception about the nature of interrogation. They don't act just because one person said something. It usually has to be three independent sources - and there can be no leading questions.

Modern interrogation is NOT medieval torture. It is a scientifically based regimen of sensory deprivation, extreme psychological pressure, specific kinds of pain, discomfort, or humiliation, and the use of modern psychotropic drugs.

Deception is also a large part of the process. Yes, you have the right to see a member of the International Red Cross. But which one of your visitors was the real one? Which of your cellmates is a real prisoner?

It's very, very effective.

OK, just a short comment,

Firstly about Islam, well guess what, it's actually not an aggresive religion (why the hell would first Islamic countires and empires leave the christians to LIVE inside their countries) so jihad is actually meant as a defence if someone is trying to deprive you of your religion. Next thing the collum about compassion is second to "belive in one god and pray every day" collum so firstly compassion then war. This is only to tell you that MOST of the Muslims are not aggresive terrorists trying to destroy our way of life.

OK, now to the people that are doing those things, they are FUNDAMENTALISTS. I agree they did a lot of bad things, but does that mean that mean we treat every muslim the same? Well we don't all the christians just becouse christian fundamentalists have done some bad things, why do we treat others that way? So trials based only on your religious or even worst national identity can not be accepted.



Fundamentalist is a inaccurate term for them...

fun·da·men·tal·ism

A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

As you said above Islam is not an aggressive religion and that compassion comes before war. A fundamentalist would understand this better then anyone else. If indeed these people ARE fundamentalists then that would imply that Islam is a fundamentally violent and hateful religion, something you state that it is not. The term "fundamentalist" is bounced around these days apparently with the implication of insanity, the reason for this is mainly a non-to-subtle attempt of "bashing" a set of principles you don't particularly like. This is, just like your above statement, completely baseless by the actual definition.

A religious fundamentalist is a person that studies a religious text with a scholarly intensity, and doing his damnest to live his life by what he learned. If that religion is peaceful this makes that person a peaceful person. Understand?

Ekland, you are right, I used the wrong term.. emmm... perhaps extremists?

Well it doesn't really matter how they are called, you know what I mean. The point is that you can not blaim the hole colture becouse of a couple insane people that take words out of the context. How does that sound?

Thanks for correcting me.

Greetings

Firstly about Islam, well guess what, it's actually not an aggresive religion
Cough, the Moors, cough.

Cough, the Moors, cough.
Cough, the Ottomans, cough,
Cough, the Abbasids, cough,
Cough, the Mamluks, cough...

oh, and cough, the Assassins, cough...

Cough, the Moors, cough.

Cough, crusades, inquisition, cough.

Would you think christian religion as violent? If an violence of a religion is mesured by the counquests of the empires it was in then I think that catolicism would be more violent... Spanish conquistadors,...

So I am not convinced by the argument.

And ottomans, mamluks left the christians to live with their own faith in ther empires, true with higher taxes, but can the same be said for catholic empires?

we have beaten some of them to death though.... I think I might prefer getting my head cut off to being struck over and over again until I bleed to death internally
Meh, they probably had it comming.

Cough, crusades, inquisition, cough.

Would you think christian religion as violent? If an violence of a religion is mesured by the counquests of the empires it was in then I think that catolicism would be more violent... Spanish conquistadors,...

So I am not convinced by the argument.

And ottomans, mamluks left the christians to live with their own faith in ther empires, true with higher taxes, but can the same be said for catholic empires?

Both Ottomans and the Mamluks enployed Sufis for ritual beheading of Christians captured in battle who were not of sufficient rank for ransom. They also killed people who either refused to convert to Islam or refused to pay the tax on non-believers (whether for reasons of poverty or not).

Meh, they probably had it comming.

lol - well since they are human I have no choice but to agree with you there

Cough, crusades, inquisition, cough.

Would you think christian religion as violent? If an violence of a religion is mesured by the counquests of the empires it was in then I think that catolicism would be more violent... Spanish conquistadors,...

So I am not convinced by the argument.

And ottomans, mamluks left the christians to live with their own faith in ther empires, true with higher taxes, but can the same be said for catholic empires?
The problem is that the Catholic church has progressed to the point where muslims living in traditionally Catholic nations have equal rights and protection. The Islamofascists want to go back to the bad old days of dhimmitude and expansionist Jihad. While the Catholics and most Muslims have progressed the enemy is still in the dark ages and wants to drag us all down there with them.

The problem is that the Catholic church has progressed to the point where muslims living in traditionally Catholic nations have equal rights and protection. The Islamofascists want to go back to the bad old days of dhimmitude and expansionist Jihad. While the Catholics and most Muslims have progressed the enemy is still in the dark ages and wants to drag us all down there with them.

well, maybe for the catholics. but the chistian taliban over here ain't exactly all sunshine, rainbows, and freedom

Both Ottomans and the Mamluks enployed Sufis for ritual beheading of Christians captured in battle who were not of sufficient rank for ransom. They also killed people who either refused to convert to Islam or refused to pay the tax on non-believers (whether for reasons of poverty or not).

True, but didn't catholiscs do similiar things in the crusades (or even in wars between each other), on the other hand catholic europe in middle ages would not accepet any one else (witches, inquisition, later conquistadors).

The point beeing that those historical facts don't make a religion violent, wouldn't you agree? Since I presume (correct me if I'm wrong) you don't cossider christian religion to be violent... And I just relised that this historical debate is kind of "off topic" to this thread so I'm going to stop... now.

The problem is that the Catholic church has progressed to the point where muslims living in traditionally Catholic nations have equal rights and protection. The Islamofascists want to go back to the bad old days of dhimmitude and expansionist Jihad. While the Catholics and most Muslims have progressed the enemy is still in the dark ages and wants to drag us all down there with them.

Good point, but once again you must differ the Islamofascist countries with the majority of the Islamic world, so you can not (going back to original topic) trial someone basing on his religion an testimony of his neighbour.

well, maybe for the catholics. but the chistian taliban over here ain't exactly all sunshine, rainbows, and freedom
The christian taliban may be a bunch of assholes, but they've yet to pass a law that eliminates freedom of religion or equal protection under the law for other religions. Even if they do it won't clear the courts.

True, but didn't catholiscs do similiar things in the crusades (or even in wars between each other), on the other hand catholic europe in middle ages would not accepet any one else (witches, inquisition, later conquistadors).

The point beeing that does historical facts don't make a religion violent, wouldn't you agree? Since I presume (correct me if I'm wrong) you don't cossider christian religion to be violent... And I just relised that this historical debate is kind of "off topic" to this thread so I'm going to stop... now.

Catholics were violent as well. And both religions were violent on their own people more often than not.

In general, modern Christianity is nowhere near as violent as it once was. I'm writing a long post on Islam and jihad, and it should clarify who in Islam has the official violence bug, and who in Islam does not. But I'm still reading books - I want to get this right.

The christian taliban may be a bunch of assholes, but they've yet to pass a law that eliminates freedom of religion or equal protection under the law for other religions. Even if they do it won't clear the courts.
But they managed to pass civil discrimination based on sexual orientation.
(Gay marriage)

Whispering Legs, glad we could come to civilised conlusion, can't wait for your post on Islam, hope it will convince some people that Islam it self is not violent, wich was my original point.

America claims how evil these "terrorists" are but don't you think that doing the same thing back to them makes America equally as evil?

NO!

But they managed to pass civil discrimination based on sexual orientation.
(Gay marriage)
Yeah, that sucks. But at least they're not stoning them. Yet.

Yeah, that sucks. But at least they're not stoning them. Yet.
Probably because we haven't given them the chance yet...

Even if they do it won't clear the courts.

yeah, they hate the courts. i imagine non-compliant judges will be among the first against the wall when their jihad is strong enough.

Whispering Legs, glad we could come to civilised conlusion, can't wait for your post on Islam, hope it will convince some people that Islam it self is not violent, wich was my original point.


I'm willing to bet Islam itself is not violent, but can become so when its twisted and translated to suit the purposes of those who use it to fuel intolerance and hatred.

I'm willing to bet Islam itself is not violent, but can become so when its twisted and translated to suit the purposes of those who use it to fuel intolerance and hatred.

Unfortunetly almost every religion can be abused in that matter... I think that even buddhism was violent (Sri Lanka was it I think) but I'm not shure bout' this one so don't be to cruel with me if I'm worng.

But what happend in case of Islam was that all of it got this negative stigma becouse of this twisted interpretations.

I'm willing to bet Islam itself is not violent, but can become so when its twisted and translated to suit the purposes of those who use it to fuel intolerance and hatred.

Most of the writings on jihad date back to pre-Crusade writings concerning conflict within Islam and against the Byzantines. Then during the Crusades, there's more writing on the subject of jihad, and the introduction of the madrassa as a primary tool of jihad (they are not simply schools - support of jihad is their only purpose).

Not that Christians weren't violent for religious reasons during that time period, but depending on which branch of Islam you fall into, jihad either is or is not a part of your belief system. Jihad in the sense that it's your obligation without question to spread Islam (Dar al-Islam) by force of arms. Most of this force of arms, BTW, was used on other groups within Islam.

But I'll post the whole thing later.

Most of the writings on jihad date back to pre-Crusade writings concerning conflict within Islam and against the Byzantines. Then during the Crusades, there's more writing on the subject of jihad, and the introduction of the madrassa as a primary tool of jihad (they are not simply schools - support of jihad is their only purpose).

Not that Christians weren't violent for religious reasons during that time period, but depending on which branch of Islam you fall into, jihad either is or is not a part of your belief system. Jihad in the sense that it's your obligation without question to spread Islam (Dar al-Islam) by force of arms. Most of this force of arms, BTW, was used on other groups within Islam.

But I'll post the whole thing later.


It seems like we may be facing another crusade then...

It seems like we may be facing another crusade then...
Most Sunnis fall into the obligatory jihad category. Shias do not - because their hidden imam isn't back yet (and depending on which type of Shia you are, the imam is different). They don't have an obligation to jihad.

Once again, it's all in the longer posting to come.

Your ethical standpoint is neither principaled nor moral. Allowing others to set the standard of your conduct is a reactive approach and intellectually lazy.
*snip*
Well, it's both a principle and moral. That you don't agree with it is irrelevant, when the non-existant God comes down from heaven and establishes absolutes, perhaps we can meaningfully argue about it, but until then, you're up gainst definitions with long standing tradidtions. It's convienence lies in it's ability to eliminate debate. My views are the dispassionate reflection of someone's own idea of justice, secure in the understanding that my "team" has a disproportunate share of the power. I don't have to wrestle with ideals to bend them, beat them, temper them so they might survive contact with the real world. Or lament the fact that I don't, nor will I ever, live in a fairytale world free from inequity and strife. But it is lazy. That's the point. To save me time. To free myself for problems with answers. That I might be able to better enrich the things I value, and diminish those I abhore.
It's a quaint view of the Geneva conventions. But politicians, and that's what diplomats are, are rarely so noble or naive. They were the quite sensible result of a generation that had lived through "total war." It was an attempt to make the most costly of human endeavors a little less awful. And it failed.

Let's talk about how well the Americans follow the "rules" shall we? The most notable American attrocity in Vietnam was Mi Lai, which was stopped by an American soldier when he ordered his door gunner to fire on American forces if they advanced on survivors. And Lt. Calley, did stand trial (although his sentence left something to be desired) for his role. On the North Vietnamese side the annihilation of entire villages, like Mi Lai, was ROUTINE. One of the reasons the final tally of the Vietnam was so great. The Vietnamese treatment of prisoners is of course legendary. The Iraqi treatment of the very few prisoners they caught was very well known. While the Iraqi prisoners would be treated so well, they would thank their captors and use their circumstance to escape to western countries. The people who don't get treated well, aren't part of ANY army. There is no country that will stand up for them. Your argument demonstrates exatcly why the US gets NO benefit from the Geneva conventions.

As for lies and power. They're still in power aren't they? Nixon had to step down, and he not for lying about why Americans should be sent to kill and die half a world away. They still wield the will of the people, and it doesn't need to be reapportioned every four years. Are they an honest trustworthy lot with a keen insight? No one claimed they were. But they do represent the will of the American people. And it's a very powerful will.

I think that my ethics professor would disagree in the relevancy of dissention based on ethical questions but that is beside the point.

As for the assertion that there is no ethical absolute you obviously put no stock in Kant. This is of course your prerogative. To argue on the basis you have established I’ll try to show some tangible benefit to the USA adhering to the more liberal interpretation of the Geneva conventions.

I would assert that the reason the Muslim extremist do not follow the Geneva Convention is because the Americans have repetitively broken it. Not to say that they’re justified but they see this convention as another institution to limit their ability to fight back against the western powers. They see an inherent hypocrisy in the enemy who calls for respect to be paid to the Geneva conventions and then pays none itself. The benefit of following the Geneva conventions would be that after a few decades of a perfect record, according to these conventions, the Muslim world might detect some sincerity in American dealings. The moral high ground would give the United States political capital to be expended when dealing with the rest of the western world and show that they can wage an effective war within their own rules.

It would be hoped that these tin pot dictators would have less of a leg to stand on if they were not able to use true facts to incense their own populations against the Americans. On a more individual level it would hopefully give the President a freer hand as his approval rating rose. As you may recal early support for the war was high and has declines. The lack of human rights violations might give the people a greater will to press the fight. The last election was close and were it not for Bush’s perceived abilities against counter terror he would have lost. This of course means that there was probably people who voted for Bush but wanted the troops to come out faster than he promised.