Innocents in Gitmo

[PLC1]

Please point out where Fighters out of Uniform - and not fighting for any particular flag or country - are listed in the Geneva convention.

Either they are POW or they are not. If they are POW, then they are covered by the Geneva Convention. If they are not, then they are subject to our laws while in our custody. In no case should they be subject to torture. All of that has already been covered in my posts.

 

[Libsmasher]

I've already shown that it has been counterproductive, and given examples of what constitutes torture.

No you didn't - you've just plagued everyone with your uninformed opinion. You DON'T KNOW what intelligence they might have gotten out of them and already used.

Why should I keep repeating myself?

No reason that I can see.

Here is more, for those who are paying attention:




http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38888.html

Having a Taliban ambassador running the prison from within is a great way to produce even more extremists, don't you think?

Oh, he "ran the prison". If he ran the prison, why didn't he stop the "torture"?

 

[GenSeneca]

In no case should they be subject to torture.

I agree. Theres just one problem... Pretend you are in charge:

1. Define exactly what "is" and "is not" torture.

2. What methods are acceptable for extracting information?

3. What methods are not acceptable for extracting information?

Here is a good place for us to start:

According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques:

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. --ABC

 

[Libsmasher]

1. Define exactly what "is" and "is not" torture.

Exactly. Why charge "torture" when it hasn't been defined? And of course, the Bushophobes' definition will be the politically expedient one that helps them seize political power.

 

[PLC1]

I agree. Theres just one problem... Pretend you are in charge:

1. Define exactly what "is" and "is not" torture.

2. What methods are acceptable for extracting information?

3. What methods are not acceptable for extracting information?

Here is a good place for us to start:

I'd call this torture, wouldn't you?

The guards kicked, kneed and punched many of the men until they collapsed in pain. U.S. troops shackled and dragged other detainees to small isolation rooms, then hung them by their wrists from chains dangling from the wire mesh ceiling.

That is, of course, only one example cited in the McClatchy series on treatment of prisoners, which is only one of many such reports.

 

[GenSeneca]

I'd call this torture, wouldn't you?



That is, of course, only one example cited in the McClatchy series on treatment of prisoners, which is only one of many such reports.

Clever Cop-Out.

Now I ask again, please define exactly what torture is and is not.

A failure to do so will result in what you have already pointed to, Abuse:

"The government failed to present any evidence of what are 'approved tactics, techniques and procedures in detainee operations.' "

So, BE CLEAR, what is and is NOT acceptable treatment for prisoners and detainees. Answers like the one you already gave, only lead to more abuse. You have to DEFINE torture or else its left to the individual to judge for themself what constitutes torture.

 

[PLC1]

Clever Cop-Out.

Now I ask again, please define exactly what torture is and is not.

A failure to do so will result in what you have already pointed to, Abuse:

"The government failed to present any evidence of what are 'approved tactics, techniques and procedures in detainee operations.' "

So, BE CLEAR, what is and is NOT acceptable treatment for prisoners and detainees. Answers like the one you already gave, only lead to more abuse. You have to DEFINE torture or else its left to the individual to judge for themself what constitutes torture.

Clever, certainly. A cop out? No, that post was exactly the kind of thing I've been referring to as "torture" all along.

Here is a definition:

Main Entry: 1tor·ture
Pronunciation: \ˈtȯr-chər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
Date: 1540

1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining

Definition 2 is the one that seems to apply here.

 

[GenSeneca]

No, that post was exactly the kind of thing I've been referring to as "torture" all along.

I know, you can point to a specific action and cry torture. What you cannot do is the reverse - use the definition of torture to specify actions.

2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

You chose 2. I will use that definition and apply it to the list:

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

By your application of the definition - Waterboarding is not Torture, The Cold Cell is not Torture, and the Long Time Standing is not Torture. I will let the troops know they can begin waterboarding once again.

 

[PLC1]

I know, you can point to a specific action and cry torture. What you cannot do is the reverse - use the definition of torture to specify actions.



You chose 2. I will use that definition and apply it to the list:

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

By your application of the definition - Waterboarding is not Torture, The Cold Cell is not Torture, and the Long Time Standing is not Torture. I will let the troops know they can begin waterboarding once again.

That, of course, depends on how you interpret the phrase "the infliction of intense pain", but, OK, have it your way. Don't call waterboarding or bringing subjects to the brink of hypothermia "torture", even if the rest of the world does.

How do you feel about the other actions I've already described and documented? Can you also justify that? How do you think the friends and families of people who have been killed while in US custody feel about the USA? We're supposed to be about the business of eradicating cockroaches, not creating more cockroaches.

This so called "war on terror" is creating more terrorists, just as the so called "war on poverty" is creating more poverty, and the so called "war on drugs" is creating more drug problems. All three ideas are insane, unworkable, and ineffective.

How about inflicting what the subject perceives as torture, then throwing said subject, who may be a petty thief, a street thug, or simply a refugee from all of the violence, into a cell with a real Islamic fanatic? We've already seen the results of that, now haven't we?

 

[GenSeneca]

OK, have it your way. Don't call waterboarding or bringing subjects to the brink of hypothermia "torture", even if the rest of the world does.

I was using your definition, now you want to move the goal post, change the rules and call new things torture...
Do you not see my point yet? I think you do... why not just admit to it already?
The definition of Torture is subject to interpretation since there is no clear definition of what constitutes torture. Wars are fought by following rules, you gave a definition of torture for your soldiers to follow and they did - then you changed your mind upon seeing some of the tactics that escaped your definition. So you change the rules to fit your sensitivities but still failed to specifically outline what is and is not acceptable methodology for interrogation.

All three ideas are insane, unworkable, and ineffective.

I agree. There is a better way to go about all 3....
The War On Drugs has clear definitions and rules for our Law Officers to follow and those rules and definitions rarely change. We don't give a crap about a drug dealers civil rights and the drug dealer is an American Citizen. On Cops you can see police overpowering suspects, using pain to coerce subjects into submission - As long as it happens in America to Americans, we don't call it torture. Put the same Americans overseas overpowering a suspect in Iraq, using pain to coerce him into submission - suddenly we're engaging in torture.

How about inflicting what the subject perceives as torture

So you would leave it to the prisoner as to what constitutes torture?
I can tell you right now, anything short of sending them home would be claimed to be painful coercion and deemed torture... So now what do you do?

 

[PLC1]

I was using your definition, now you want to move the goal post, change the rules and call new things torture...
Do you not see my point yet? I think you do... why not just admit to it already?
The definition of Torture is subject to interpretation since there is no clear definition of what constitutes torture. Wars are fought by following rules, you gave a definition of torture for your soldiers to follow and they did - then you changed your mind upon seeing some of the tactics that escaped your definition. So you change the rules to fit your sensitivities but still failed to specifically outline what is and is not acceptable methodology for interrogation.

The fact of the matter is that there would be no need to define "torture" if we were to either (1) classify the prisoners as POW, and therefore subject to the Geneva Convention, or (2) non POW prisoners in our custody and subject to our laws. The Bush administration has chosen to classify them as none of the above, and to decide what may or may not constitute torture.

The other fact of the matter is that mistreatment of prisoners, whether or not you want to parse words and debate the meaning of "is", has been counterproductive in the so called "war on terror."

I agree. There is a better way to go about all 3....
The War On Drugs has clear definitions and rules for our Law Officers to follow and those rules and definitions rarely change. We don't give a crap about a drug dealers civil rights and the drug dealer is an American Citizen. On Cops you can see police overpowering suspects, using pain to coerce subjects into submission - As long as it happens in America to Americans, we don't call it torture. Put the same Americans overseas overpowering a suspect in Iraq, using pain to coerce him into submission - suddenly we're engaging in torture.

Now you're really reaching. When have you ever seen cops hang perps from the ceiling, or beat them senseless? I'll bet you haven't even seen them engage in the milder forms of mistreatment we've been discussing, like waterboarding or subjecting them to hypothermia. If they did, their cases would be thrown out of court.

You might wish for a system in which such actions are considered acceptable. If you do, you might try immigrating to somewhere else, say North Korea, for example.

So you would leave it to the prisoner as to what constitutes torture?
I can tell you right now, anything short of sending them home would be claimed to be painful coercion and deemed torture... So now what do you do?

Go back and read the rest of my post, rather than taking a piece out of contetext, and maybe we can have a rational discussion.

 

[GenSeneca]

(1) classify the prisoners as POW, and therefore subject to the Geneva Convention

What happened when Bush asked for the Geneva Convention to be updated to deal with these people?
That wasn't SUPPORT he was getting from the Left.

(2) non POW prisoners in our custody and subject to our laws.

When not on our soil? Would they not be subject to the laws of the nation we were holding them??

The other fact of the matter is that mistreatment of prisoners...has been counterproductive in the so called "war on terror."

I have not said otherwise. I have been steadily trying to point out that if you fail to outline specific rules - there will be abuse.

Now you're really reaching. When have you ever seen cops hang perps from the ceiling, or beat them senseless? I'll bet you haven't even seen them engage in the milder forms of mistreatment we've been discussing, like waterboarding or subjecting them to hypothermia. If they did, their cases would be thrown out of court.

Don't change the subject. You said leave the definition of torture to the person enduring the pain - that would be every criminal, prisoner and terrorist in our custody as the sole arbiters of what constitutes torture.
Your angry and frustrated that you CANNOT define torture to a point that covers all your sensitivities.

You might wish for a system in which such actions are considered acceptable. If you do, you might try immigrating to somewhere else, say North Korea, for example.

You're simply lashing out with statements like this.

I don't want the US to "torture" anyone. BUT-However-In consequence of that - We must have a CONCRETE definition of torture - complete with an outline of acceptable and unacceptable activities - and these must remain CONSTANT so that we don't cross the line.

Thus far, no such concrete definitions or outlines are in place, and thats not from a lack of trying. Its from a lack of cooperation from people like yourself.

You, who would call someone names for wanting definitions. You, who would claim someone to be sadistic for insisting on an outline for acceptable activity. You, who likes to end by claiming moral superiority when its your side that has failed to protect the innocent by simply providing definitions, outlines and support to the effort.

Go back and read the rest of my post, rather than taking a piece out of contetext, and maybe we can have a rational discussion.

I feel the same way but you insist on playing the moral relativism game, trying desperately to paint me as a horrible person that wants people tortured.
Pointing out abuses that have already happened and saying "This sort of thing shouldn't happen" is not productive in that it does nothing to stop the abuse.
Only definitions, outlines and rules can do that - When you're ready to talk about those things, we can have a rational discussion - one thats focused on realistic applications and not just intangible ideology.

 

[PLC1]

I have not said otherwise. I have been steadily trying to point out that if you fail to outline specific rules - there will be abuse.

Yes, there will, and putting prisoners into a classification in which they have no rights at all, as was done in this case, invites abuse.

I don't want the US to "torture" anyone. BUT-However-In consequence of that - We must have a CONCRETE definition of torture - complete with an outline of acceptable and unacceptable activities - and these must remain CONSTANT so that we don't cross the line.

We do have a concrete definition. Bush inc. didn't like it, so he circumvented the law, plain and simple.

You, who would call someone names for wanting definitions. You, who would claim someone to be sadistic for insisting on an outline for acceptable activity. You, who likes to end by claiming moral superiority when its your side that has failed to protect the innocent by simply providing definitions, outlines and support to the effort.

I do not engage in name calling. That is childish and proves that the name caller has no valid argumnts.

I feel the same way but you insist on playing the moral relativism game, trying desperately to paint me as a horrible person that wants people tortured.
Pointing out abuses that have already happened and saying "This sort of thing shouldn't happen" is not productive in that it does nothing to stop the abuse.
Only definitions, outlines and rules can do that - When you're ready to talk about those things, we can have a rational discussion - one thats focused on realistic applications and not just intangible ideology.

Definitions, outlines, and rhles can't do it when those things can be circumvented by clever manipulation.

 

[GenSeneca]

We do have a concrete definition. Bush inc. didn't like it, so he circumvented the law, plain and simple.

Please provide the definition and cite the legislative or executive actions taken by the Administration that circumvented the definition.

Definitions, outlines, and rhles can't do it when those things can be circumvented by clever manipulation.

Its one thing if they are made and circumvented, its another thing altogether if we don't bother with them because they can be circumvented by clever manipulation anyway.

I wanted the Left to work with Bush all the times he asked for help, instead they took every opportunity to beat him up with viscous propaganda... which some people still believe is true - "Bush wants permission to Torture!" - and they certainly don't remember what Bush was actually asking for each time - Clarification.

Additionally, look through your list of torture victims. How many of those victims were tortured at the hands of the people we legally entrust with using "Harsh Interrogation" techniques? Are there any?

I think the detainees do deserve some basic rights and I TRUST our military to do the right thing. When there are abuses, I expect the Military to take care of it because they know full well such negative PR is devastating to our presence in Iraq.

I am kind of insulted that any AMERICAN would suggest our Military actively seeks to inflict senseless pain and misery on the civilian population of Iraq as a matter of established military doctrine. Thats the kinda crap I expect to hear coming from Iran, not my next door neighbor... Its very disturbing.

 

[PLC1]

Please provide the definition and cite the legislative or executive actions taken by the Administration that circumvented the definition.

Why do you keep asking me to repeat myself? Everything I've said is still in this thread.

Its one thing if they are made and circumvented, its another thing altogether if we don't bother with them because they can be circumvented by clever manipulation anyway.

Any law can be circumvented. Does that mean we shouldn't bother with any laws at all?

Or, just that the government can be a law unto itself?

I wanted the Left to work with Bush all the times he asked for help, instead they took every opportunity to beat him up with viscous propaganda... which some people still believe is true - "Bush wants permission to Torture!" - and they certainly don't remember what Bush was actually asking for each time - Clarification.

Bush himself is a part of the left, if you look at his actions while in office, and he didn't ask for anyone's permission to torture prisoners.

Additionally, look through your list of torture victims. How many of those victims were tortured at the hands of the people we legally entrust with using "Harsh Interrogation" techniques? Are there any?

We don't "legally" entrust anyone to use torture, whether it is called by some other name or not. All of the victims in the stories I've cited were abused at the hands of our own personnel, and at the command of those who really hold the power.

I think the detainees do deserve some basic rights and I TRUST our military to do the right thing. When there are abuses, I expect the Military to take care of it because they know full well such negative PR is devastating to our presence in Iraq.

I am kind of insulted that any AMERICAN would suggest our Military actively seeks to inflict senseless pain and misery on the civilian population of Iraq as a matter of established military doctrine. Thats the kinda crap I expect to hear coming from Iran, not my next door neighbor... Its very disturbing.

And I am insulted by the fact that our military has, in fact, mistreated prisoners in their custody. Yes, I agree that the detainees do deserve some basic rights, and we should be able to trust the military, under the direction of the commanders, to do the right thing. That is why it is so totally uancceptable that so many abuses have, in fact ocurred, and even more apalling that our commander in chief has not had the courage to condemn such actions. What has happened is the kind of thing we can expect from the cockroaches we are supposed to be fighting, not from our own people for heaven's sake. How any AMERICAN, or anyone else, can justify the kinds of abuses turned up by the people from McClatchy is beyond comprehension.

And, to say that it is "negative PR" is a huge understatement.