What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

[top gun]

That "book"'s already been WRITTEN! (...By someone who knows what he's doing.)

There's nothing TO discuss!!!!!

You ENJOY being ignorant/behind-the-curve?????

​

OH MY GOD PLEASE DON'T HAVE HIM READ A BOOK... then he'd be libelous for lying while he was plagiarizing!:

He's just like his hero...

 

[GenSeneca]

You already lost about three posts ago when my words had you so knocked out you had to change them to try and save face.

TOPIC: What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

I can't lose when the topic is a question and not a competition.

What designation will you give to those we pick up on the battlefield?

 

[GenSeneca]

you have no credability... you lose... case closed.

From my "Progressives: The Anti-Liberals" Thread:

To destroy their enemies, Progressives start with attempts to discredit and destroy the character of those they disagree with, hence the reason they are so quick to level charges of racism, sexism, bigotry and homophobia.... anything to make their enemies sound like the intolerant ones. Progressives want to shut down all opposition and putting their opposition on the defensive by attacking their character has become a preferred tactic. That way progressives won't have to deal with the substance of the message they disagree with and others won't hear the message either but instead will be distracted into hearing only the defense of the messengers character.

Progressives have no intelligent defense of their positions so if attacking the character of those who oppose them fails, they move onto emotional arguments, straw men, red herrings and other logical fallacies to keep from dealing with reality.

Either I'm that good, or Progressives are that predictable... Probably a little of both.

 

[top gun]

TOPIC: What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

I can't lose when the topic is a question and not a competition.

What designation will you give to those we pick up on the battlefield?

WHAT PART OF ANY & ALL INTERROGATION METHODS ALLOWED UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION ARE YOU HAVING A PROBLEM WITH!

I certainly don't know all the many interrogation techniques used on POW's but I'm certain there are many used to obtain information... just like there are many different ways the police crack hardened criminals that rape, rob & murder.

And as I've said before now... like 5 times... I'd even be fine taking it up a notch to allow some physical contact as in pushing up against a wall while giving them the old drill Sergeant technique or even a slap here and there.

But coming up with real torture methods, contraptions and devices like waterboarding. Nope.

As far as what we call them I DON'T CARE! Call them A$$holes in captivity it doesn't matter! It's how they can be treated that matters not what name they go by.

Now certainly after 5 times my position on this is crystal clear as to the types of things to be allowed and not allowed.

 

[top gun]

From my "Progressives: The Anti-Liberals" Thread:



Either I'm that good, or Progressives are that predictable... Probably a little of both.

Or neither... you just got caught intentionally misquoting what people actually said to try an bolster a weak case... and lost credibility. That's what YOU did to YOURSELF. No one else did anything to you.

Let's just move on and just not do that anymore & things will be much better...

 

[BigRob]

OH MY GOD PLEASE DON'T HAVE HIM READ A BOOK... then he'd be libelous for lying while he was plagiarizing!:

He's just like his hero...

I thought it was Biden that went down for plagiarism.

 

[BigRob]

WHAT PART OF ANY & ALL INTERROGATION METHODS ALLOWED UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION ARE YOU HAVING A PROBLEM WITH!

I would again argue that everything we have done is and has been in line with the Geneva Conventions for the numerous reasons I have already spelled out.

As far as what we call them I DON'T CARE! Call them A$$holes in captivity it doesn't matter! It's how they can be treated that matters not what name they go by.

Language is probably the most important thing in this debate. What we call them is important. I think the issue of how they are classified and what they are entitled to under the Geneva Conventions is linked.

If you want to follow the Geneva Conventions, then you have to follow that these people are not POW's because they do not meet the Convention's standards for such. Therefore, "anything allowed under the Geneva Conventions" means anything that we deem legal, since that is legal according to the Geneva Conventions.

 

[top gun]

i thought it was biden that went down for plagiarism.

touche!

 

[top gun]

I would again argue that everything we have done is and has been in line with the Geneva Conventions for the numerous reasons I have already spelled out.

Well they're only in line because you exempt them from the very protections themselves of the Geneva Convention. That's what has been changed now. Regardless of the name we call them these detainees are now being treated more like a POW... which is what I think is right and honorable.

Language is probably the most important thing in this debate. What we call them is important. I think the issue of how they are classified and what they are entitled to under the Geneva Conventions is linked.

If you want to follow the Geneva Conventions, then you have to follow that these people are not POW's because they do not meet the Convention's standards for such. Therefore, "anything allowed under the Geneva Conventions" means anything that we deem legal, since that is legal according to the Geneva Conventions.

I'm not big on the whole word smith game. These detainees are every bit as much foreign fighters as the Viet Cong. The only real difference is they are more aligned on religious grounds and a region than any particular country.

The choice & the fix doesn't seem insurmountable here. We either call them one thing and say we can then legally torture them... or we adapt rules similar to those of the Geneva Convention to address these prisoners treatment in captivity.

I'm voting for the latter.

 

[GenSeneca]

I would again argue that everything we have done is and has been in line with the Geneva Conventions for the numerous reasons I have already spelled out.

There were no counter arguments made with legal to your points on that matter, only emotional appeals and an assortment of other fallacies.

Language is probably the most important thing in this debate. What we call them is important.

Unless you argue in general terms about vague concepts... then specifics aren't too important.

I think the issue of how they are classified and what they are entitled to under the Geneva Conventions is linked.

Its absolutely linked. The classification of "enemy combatant" was an attempt to categorize the people we picked up on the battlefield in order for us to grant them tribunal trials on one hand (in order to release the innocent and non-threatening) and hold the dangerous ones indefinitely on the other... what some would call the "best of both worlds".

If you want to follow the Geneva Conventions, then you have to follow that these people are not POW's because they do not meet the Convention's standards for such. Therefore, "anything allowed under the Geneva Conventions" means anything that we deem legal, since that is legal according to the Geneva Conventions.

That went right over the head of your intended target.

 

[PLC1]

I would again argue that everything we have done is and has been in line with the Geneva Conventions for the numerous reasons I have already spelled out.



Language is probably the most important thing in this debate. What we call them is important. I think the issue of how they are classified and what they are entitled to under the Geneva Conventions is linked.

If you want to follow the Geneva Conventions, then you have to follow that these people are not POW's because they do not meet the Convention's standards for such. Therefore, "anything allowed under the Geneva Conventions" means anything that we deem legal, since that is legal according to the Geneva Conventions.

No, language is not the most important thing in the debate. Human rights are the most important thing, that and the credibility of the United States as an advocate for human rights.

As for language, cynically inventing a new term in order to circumvent civilized accords should be beneath any nation that advocates human rights.

Making up a new name for captives is simply using semantics to ignore our own values. It is going to be a long time, and take a lot more effort, before we once again become credible as an advocate for civilized behavior in regards to human rights.

Technically, the argument could be made that it is legal, maybe.

If I told a store security person that I wasn't shoplifting, but simply using enhanced shopping techniques, and that the goods I had in my bag weren't goods at all, but simply surplus items, would that mean I was within the law?

 

[BigRob]

No, language is not the most important thing in the debate. Human rights are the most important thing, that and the credibility of the United States as an advocate for human rights.

Then the question just becomes what are human rights, and the manner in which you define them creates the same problems.

As for language, cynically inventing a new term in order to circumvent civilized accords should be beneath any nation that advocates human rights.

The Geneva Conventions clearly spells out what is required to be a POW. Please explain to me why abiding by the language spelled out by the Conventions equates to "circumventing" the accord?

Making up a new name for captives is simply using semantics to ignore our own values. It is going to be a long time, and take a lot more effort, before we once again become credible as an advocate for civilized behavior in regards to human rights.

We followed the Geneva Accords by not giving these people POW protections.

Technically, the argument could be made that it is legal, maybe.

I would say there is a high probability that the argument has already been won that is was legal.

If I told a store security person that I wasn't shoplifting, but simply using enhanced shopping techniques, and that the goods I had in my bag weren't goods at all, but simply surplus items, would that mean I was within the law?

This analogy does not capture what is occurring. Basically it would be like you just walking around a store, being arrested for shoplifting, having a lawyer point out that what you were doing was in full accordance with the laws governing shop lifting, and then having people accuse that lawyer of circumventing the law.

 

[PLC1]

Then the question just becomes what are human rights, and the manner in which you define them creates the same problems.



The Geneva Conventions clearly spells out what is required to be a POW. Please explain to me why abiding by the language spelled out by the Conventions equates to "circumventing" the accord?



We followed the Geneva Accords by not giving these people POW protections.



I would say there is a high probability that the argument has already been won that is was legal.



This analogy does not capture what is occurring. Basically it would be like you just walking around a store, being arrested for shoplifting, having a lawyer point out that what you were doing was in full accordance with the laws governing shop lifting, and then having people accuse that lawyer of circumventing the law.

It would only be "in full accordance with the laws government shop lifting" if you redefined the terms, just as the term POW was not used. This is a semantic argument, making technically legal a practice that any thinking person knows is not right, regardless of his/her knowledge of the law.

We can say, "Oh, they don't meet the definition of POW, so we can call then whatever we want", and the world will shrug and say, "whatever."
But when we say, "We'll call them this name, and, since there are no human rights attached to that name, we can do whatever we want", and the world will sit up and take notice.

The fact remains that, however you define a human being, they are still human, whether or not they are POW or "enemy combatants", or "wild guys in turbans." It doesn't matter what you call them, they either have human rights, or the nation deciding to treat them as if they didn't is not credible as a voice for human rights.

 

[GenSeneca]

This is a semantic argument, making technically legal a practice that any thinking person knows is not right, regardless of his/her knowledge of the law.

Do scientific terms like zygote, fetus and infant serve any real purpose or are they semantics? When the courts refer to these terms, are they doing so for the purpose of clarification or simply making semantic arguments? When an abortion advocate says its ok to terminate a zygote but not ok to terminate an infant, is he making a semantic argument? Most importantly, is anyone blaming the biological terms for the political argument over abortion? This is what I see you as doing... you're blaming our use of the term "enemy combatant" for the treatment some detainees were subjected to known as "enhanced interrogations". It would be like me saying that because you use the term zygote, you think you can kill the individual and if we'd have only changed the term zygote to something else, you'd recognize him as having rights. Simply put, its the fallacy of Non-causa-pro-causa, a fallacy of false cause.

The GC spells out who POW's are, and what persons have to do in order to qualify as POW's. They didn't fit that term.... in fact, there were no terms in the GC that fit these particular individuals or our situation, save spies... whom we'd be in our rights to execute accordingly. So we decided that we needed a new term that would specify who these people were and how they were to be treated.

Despite the caterwauling of people like yourself who claim we did this in order to "legally torture" people and deny them any and all human rights, the issue of harsh interrogation is a separate, albeit related, issue. Please try to divorce that issue from the one at hand for the purpose of understanding why we created the term "enemy combatant" to identify those we picked up on the battlefield.

The Administration recognized that simply granting them POW status meant we couldn't give them any trials*, we couldn't release any of them*, and we'd be stuck with everyone picked up on the battlefield till the end of hostilities* (in a war with no clear end). Any reasonable individual would recognize that granting them POW status is neither desirable nor practical.

We wanted to give them tribunals, we wanted to release those who didn't pose a threat and hold, in some cases indefinitely, those we found to be a threat. To do those things, we had to create the term "enemy combatant". We did not deny human rights or torture as a result of our creating this term, we did not use the creation of this term as an excuse to deny human rights or torture. Such accusations are political pablum that intentionally blur the issues of enhanced interrogation and our creation of terminology to draw connections that don't exist.

As for enhanced interrogation... Please look at this diagram again, since you seem to have missed, or ignored, it every other time its been posted:

There are 5 levels of interrogation in the AFM, all of which are in line with the GC and international law. Once a terrorist gets through all 5 levels, do you just sit on your hands and say "oh well, innocent people will just have to die because I can't make any physical contact lest I violate his human rights as well as the GC and AFM."... Is that what you would say, oh well?

Do you approve of any physical contact for those who go beyond level 5?

If so, you'd be supporting violations of their human rights, the GC and AFM which you care so much about upholding.

If not, you're potentially putting lives at risk and treating hardened terrorists with far less harsh interrogation techniques than we subject common criminals to, at the hands of local police, here in the states.

Beyond level 5 are the "harsh interrogation techniques", techniques that were approved, and overseen, by a bi-partisan congress and crafted by a TOTALLY DIFFERENT GROUP of people from those who developed the terminology of "enemy combatants".

Again, you're blaming our use of the term "enemy combatant" for the treatment some detainees were subjected to known as "enhanced interrogations" when its not a direct cause and effect relationship as is being eluded.

 

[BigRob]

It would only be "in full accordance with the laws government shop lifting" if you redefined the terms, just as the term POW was not used. This is a semantic argument, making technically legal a practice that any thinking person knows is not right, regardless of his/her knowledge of the law.

It would be a redefinition of the term POW to classify people who clearly do not meet the standards spelled out to get this status as POW's.

You seem to be in favor of redefining terms, as long as they fall in line with your own view on the issue.

We can say, "Oh, they don't meet the definition of POW, so we can call then whatever we want", and the world will shrug and say, "whatever."
But when we say, "We'll call them this name, and, since there are no human rights attached to that name, we can do whatever we want", and the world will sit up and take notice.

If they do not meet the standards spelled out for POW protection under the Geneva Conventions then they are going to be governed by our domestic policy that we establish. Since our Congress said these practices were fine, it was perfectly in line with both international and domestic standards.

If some other country does not like that, that is their issue, but we broke no laws doing it. I will grant you we lost the PR fight in regards to GITMO, but legally, I think we were on solid ground.

The fact remains that, however you define a human being, they are still human, whether or not they are POW or "enemy combatants", or "wild guys in turbans." It doesn't matter what you call them, they either have human rights, or the nation deciding to treat them as if they didn't is not credible as a voice for human rights.

Yes, they are human, I am not sure anyone is trying to dispute that. However, everything that was done was in line with all legal regimes at the time.

As for being credible, I think you need to ask "credible with who?" We will maintain credibility with most nations, and the ones we might not have it with the odds are probably good in most cases that we were not going to have it begin with.

On a side note, I am glad that you agree that credibility is such an important issue however, which is why we need missile defense, and upgrades to our nuclear arsenal.