What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

[Pandora]

Sorry about that Sihouette reference ...you most certainly are not!! See it bothers you when you get misquoted...hmm

But go back and reread my post when I referenced Hitler or stop dragging it around the board like a little child!!!!

I did read it and I did reply to it. You brought up Hitler not me. I only replied to what you said. It was you who got upset when I said he was more like you and your ilk. I was not upset when you said he was like mine. I know he is not, it did not bother me at all. If you are going to throw mud, you should learn not to get upset when it gets thrown back at you.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Pandora said: I did read it and I did reply to it. You brought up Hitler not me. I only replied to what you said. It was you who got upset when I said he was more like you and your ilk. I was not upset when you said he was like mine. I know he is not, it did not bother me at all. If you are going to throw mud, you should learn not to get upset when it gets thrown back at you.

Touché

But just saying you weren't upset about my Hitler reference and then in turn calling me a 'LIB' and then telling me..."I shouldn't get up set about mud slinging"...is quite the Oxymoron statement! I referenced the style and wording that you used and said 'ILK'...you have labeled me 'LIB' like you enjoy putting people down. I do stand in the middle of the road and I've been called worse by more intelligent people...but that's OK too

 

[Pandora]

Touché

But just saying you weren't upset about my Hitler reference and then in turn calling me a 'LIB' and then telling me..."I shouldn't get up set about mud slinging"...is quite the Oxymoron statement! I referenced the style and wording that you used and said 'ILK'...you have labeled me 'LIB' like you enjoy putting people down. I do stand in the middle of the road and I've been called worse by more intelligent people...but that's OK too

If my calling you a lib upset you then I am sorry. I had no idea that the word liberal was such a put down. I think most who claim to be independent are Lib’s who hate being labeled but I had no idea you took the word liberal as such a dirty word, most do not.

I used the word to assure Top Gun that it was not one of those dirty conservatives or republicans who brought up the Hitler reference. I would not want him assuming the nasty republicans were up to no good again. I don’t think Top thinks of liberal as a dirty word, it was not intended in that way at all.

For me politics breaks down to liberals and conservatives. If you don’t fit one I shove you in the box with the others. You did not fit in the conservative box and that only left one place for you.

I am a registered democrat but rarely vote with them though I would rather vote for a conservative democrat than a liberal republican.

Again, if referring to you as liberal was offending I am sorry. I do only have two boxes though so it might happen again but Ill try to remember the word offends you and hopefully I won’t use it with you again.

 

[Pandora]

I've already said what I'd be willing to do: Anything that is in line with the Geneva Convention.

Inventing a new name for the people in our custody, then ignoring the Geneva Convention, then debating how severely it's OK to torture them is simply not acceptable to a civilized society.

There's my answer. I know there are those who won't like it. Tough.

I tried reading that and from what I can tell they dont list what you can do either, they just list what you cant do and even that is open to interpretation.

 

[BigRob]

Appeals court rules Gitmo detainees are not ‘persons’
Raw Story
A Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C. Circuit ruled Friday that detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are not “persons” according to it’s interpretation of a statute involving religious freedom.

The ruling sprang from an appeal of Rasul v. Rumsfeld, which was thrown out in Jan. 2008. “The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the constitutional and international law claims, and reversed the district court’s decision that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) applied to Guantanamo detainees, dismissing those claims as well,” the Center for Constitutional Rights said.

After the Supreme Court recognized, over objections from the Bush administration, that terror war prisoners have the right to habeas corpus petitions, it also directed the D.C. court of appeals to reexamine the case.

The suit, Rasul v. Rumsfeld, charges numerous Bush administration officials with “violations of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA),” CCR said.

“In its first filing on detention and torture under the Obama administration, the Department of Justice filed briefs in March urging the Court of Appeals to reject any constitutional or statutory rights for detainees,” says a release. “The Obama Justice Department further argued that even if such rights were recognized, the Court should rule that the previous administration’s officials who ordered and approved torture and abuse of the plaintiffs should be immune from liability for their actions.”

“[The] Court reaffirmed its decision from last year that detainees are not ‘persons’ for the purposes of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was enacted in 1993 to protect against government actions that unreasonably interfere with religious practices,” the release continued. “Last year, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a member of the Court of Appeals panel who issued the decision today, referred to the Court’s holding that detainees are not ‘persons’ as ‘a most regrettable holding in a case where plaintiffs have alleged high-level U.S. government officials treated them as less than human.’”
The full press release from the Center for Constitutional Rights follows.

####

Court Of Appeals Rules Detainees Are Not “Persons” in Guantánamo Torture Suit
Court Agrees with Obama Administration that Detainees Still Have No Constitutional Right Not to Be Tortured

April 24, 2009 Washington, D.C. – In a suit brought by British men imprisoned for two years at Guantanamo, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today reaffirmed its previous ruling that Guantanamo detainees lack the fundamental constitutional right not to be tortured and are not “persons” under a U.S. statute protecting religious freedom.

Last summer, the Supreme Court directed the Court of Appeals to reconsider its previous decision in Rasul v. Rumsfeld, in light of the High Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush, which recognized the constitutional right of habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. The plaintiffs urged the Court of Appeals to follow the clear logic of the Boumediene decision and to recognize both the constitutional rights of the detainees to humane and just treatment and the fact that, under any definition of the word, they are “persons” entitled to religious freedom and dignity as required by law.

http://waronyou.com/topics/appeals-court-rules-gitmo-detainees-are-not-persons/
******************************************

I've lost the other link for the ruling last year that prompted the courts ruling about the lack of due process for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and the court order get this done or release them ASAP. But I'll find it!!!

This recent appeals hearing is more fuel for the fire of the reason that Bush Administration was SO SKIRTING AROUND THE ISSUE OF WHAT TO CALL THE P.O.W. AND WHAT NOT TO CALL THEM...Keeping them 'NO NAMED' was very, very logistical and in his favor and his group of henchmen knew it too!!!

Allowing detainees habeus corpus does not mean the Supreme Court ruled anyone had to be released...

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Allowing detainees habeus corpus does not mean the Supreme Court ruled anyone had to be released...

Legal Affairs
5 Detainees Ordered Released From Guantanamo
November 21, 2008 · A federal judge in Washington has ordered the Bush administration to release five detainees from the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The men have been held there for seven years on evidence the judge finds insufficient. The ruling is the first by a trial judge since the Supreme Court declared in June that the Guantanamo prisoners have the right to challenge their detentions in U.S. courts.
http://www.npr.org/templates/archive...97&startNum=16

I tried to get this edited in as quick as I could find it but I guess I missed your reply...but it's up there!!! I may have a faulty memory about where I read stuff my my memory isn't faulty about what I read...mostly I'm accusing someone of something entirely different...ergo the conversation that I just had with Pandora...

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

If my calling you a lib upset you then I am sorry. I had no idea that the word liberal was such a put down. I think most who claim to be independent are Lib’s who hate being labeled but I had no idea you took the word liberal as such a dirty word, most do not.

I used the word to assure Top Gun that it was not one of those dirty conservatives or republicans who brought up the Hitler reference. I would not want him assuming the nasty republicans were up to no good again. I don’t think Top thinks of liberal as a dirty word, it was not intended in that way at all.

For me politics breaks down to liberals and conservatives. If you don’t fit one I shove you in the box with the others. You did not fit in the conservative box and that only left one place for you.

I am a registered democrat but rarely vote with them though I would rather vote for a conservative democrat than a liberal republican.
Again, if referring to you as liberal was offending I am sorry. I do only have two boxes though so it might happen again but Ill try to remember the word offends you and hopefully I won’t use it with you again.

Ok, OK...maybe I 'ASSUMED' a poke at my person that wasn't intended. There once was a time in my life that I was called a 'pseudo right-wing nut job republican' {voted for Reagan ONE TIME} so as I said...I'm pretty much middle of the road registered Independent and I get called SHI* from both sides. I'll wear more 'bubble wrap'...PEACE

 

[Dr.Who]

[

I'd love to see the holy roller crow show possibly half as much care for the all the poor & suffering families with children, children with severe birth defects, children in foster homes & orphanages and just people in general.

Instead of trying to dictate to women that they must follow some certain other persons religious dogma and do as they are told.

The holy rollers donate far more time and money to help just those people than any other group in America. They also run more of the homes for disabled, hospitals, and orphanages than any other group.

And contrary to popular belief they are not all that interested in making religious mores into law. Generally they just want recognition of the the common sense proposal that killing a living human is murder.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The holy rollers donate far more time and money to help just those people than any other group in America. They also run more of the homes for disabled, hospitals, and orphanages than any other group.

And contrary to popular belief they are not all that interested in making religious mores into law. Generally they just want recognition of the the common sense proposal that killing a living human is murder.

Generally in agreement with your post, but I would like to see the demand for the killing of gay people taken out of the Bible.

 

[PLC1]

Thank you for the link.

It totally silly that people won’t just say what they are willing to do but ok ill look at this.



First off I see no strip searches,

#1 says.
No humiliating and degrading treatment. Strip searches are both humiliating and degrading.


#2 says, the wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. OK so that answers my aspirin head ache scenario.

OK it starts going down hill from there and I think I need to hire and attorney to explain it to me.


To be on the safe side I don’t think we should have prisoners if this is what you go by it’s very difficult to understand and not very well defined as to what your rights are as the person holding the prisoners

I think the 5 star hotel really is the safest bet to not have it come back in your face and have it said you violated the rules.

Now I understand why people won’t say what they are willing to do, because there is nothing you can do depending on who reads the document and defines its meaning.

I'll bet you didn't see anything about waterboarding being OK, nor about stress positions, nor about inducing hypothermia. I know you didn't see anything about the more severe forms of torture that were said to not be authorized by the high officials.

No wonder we're seeing red herrings about abortion that have nothing to do with the question of the spectacle of a western democracy, a voice for human rights, engaging in torturing prisoners, then attempting to justify it by not labeling them as POW, or as anything else that confers any degree of humanity on said prisoners. Did I see the phrase "non persons" above? Well, if they're "non persons", that makes them not human, doesn't it? Aren't there rules about cruelty to animals as well?

If some yahoo were found waterboarding dogs, would he be prosecuted?

Are the prisoners less than animals?

 

[GenSeneca]

We should do everything we possibly can up to the torture threshold.

This really doesn't appear all that difficult to understand.

If its so easy to understand, why do you STILL not get it?

You STILL haven't defined your concept of "torture" in terms of acceptable, much less applicable, techniques. There must be a line of demarcation and to make that line clear, the exact proceedures, directly on either side of the "torture" line, must be named so as to be crystal clear.

"everything up to the point of torture" is so broad, NAFTA could build their superhighway there... Its so vauge, I can see the mirrors thought he smoke... Not since Larry Craig has anyone taken such a wide stance.... Its precisely that type of psuedo-intellecutal-feel-good-psycho-babble, which was passed off as policy, that got us to this point in the first place.

But that's the point isn't it? Make meaningless but politically correct statements in order to feel good about yourselves without actually coming to terms with reality. Then smugly pat each other on the back while vilifying everyone who questions you, or asks for clarification, as being immoral and pro-torture.

I'm asking you to take a stand on a clear line and define what's directly on either side of that line. You, and others like you, have chosen a very blurry line to "stand" on by providing obvious, extreme examples far away from the line you claim to be standing on: Shooting someone in the kneecaps is torture but politely questioning them is not. Its the exact proceedures on either side of the line you claim to stand on that I want to hear identified, not the proceedures at either end of the spectrum that everyone already agrees with.

 

[BigRob]

Legal Affairs
5 Detainees Ordered Released From Guantanamo
November 21, 2008 · A federal judge in Washington has ordered the Bush administration to release five detainees from the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The men have been held there for seven years on evidence the judge finds insufficient. The ruling is the first by a trial judge since the Supreme Court declared in June that the Guantanamo prisoners have the right to challenge their detentions in U.S. courts.
http://www.npr.org/templates/archive...97&startNum=16

This again shows that the Supreme Court ordered they could challenge their detentions, not that they automatically had to be released. It does not show that we were wrong to be holding them, just that we had to make the argument in a court. In that particular case, the judge decided it was not sufficient.

I think the notion that the "Supreme Court ruled Bush was wrong" was an unfair statement given that they did not rule we could not hold them, just that evidence needed to be provided as to why.

 

[GenSeneca]

..............

........I'll take that as a "no" then?.......

What's a shame is your inability to see my points in all of this, even my satirical reply went right over your head... so let me put it this way:

If I were to list the techniques that I approve of, that would do nothing to get others to think about the topic beyond the emotional appeals that have been passed off as intellectual knowledge.

My list would not be met with a list of their own, my list would simply be attacked. I want to see who has the capacity to think about this topic rather than feel their way through it. So far, those who have taken to specifics are playing it safe and not getting too close to specific examples on either side of the line they are standing.

 

[PLC1]

What's a shame is your inability to see my points in all of this, even my satirical reply went right over your head... so let me put it this way:

If I were to list the techniques that I approve of, that would do nothing to get others to think about the topic beyond the emotional appeals that have been passed off as intellectual knowledge.

My list would not be met with a list of their own, my list would simply be attacked. I want to see who has the capacity to think about this topic rather than feel their way through it. So far, those who have taken to specifics are playing it safe and not getting too close to specific examples on either side of the line they are standing.

OK, fair enough. Let's start a list.

I say it's OK to lie to the prisoners, the way cops sometimes lie to suspects to get them to open up.

It's OK to play good cop, bad cop.

It's OK to keep asking the same question over and over until the suspect finally forgets what lies he already told.

OK, you add something, or attack one of mine.

 

[Pandora]

Ok, OK...maybe I 'ASSUMED' a poke at my person that wasn't intended. There once was a time in my life that I was called a 'pseudo right-wing nut job republican' {voted for Reagan ONE TIME} so as I said...I'm pretty much middle of the road registered Independent and I get called SHI* from both sides. I'll wear more 'bubble wrap'...PEACE

No problems and I will try hard not to pop any of your bubble wrap