"If the Detainee Dies, You're Doing it Wrong"

I know it's off most everybody's radar screen, but a lot of info has been coming out in the past week.

Physicians for Human Rights managed to examine 11 detainees:

It is the most extensive medical study of former detainees published so far to determine whether their stories of abuse at American hands could be corroborated with physical evidence. It followed standards and methods used worldwide to document torture.

Doctors and mental health professionals examined 11 former prisoners in intensive two-day sessions. All the prisoners were freed without charges, either innocent or not valuable enough to the military to hold.

The group alleges it found evidence of U.S. torture and war crimes, and said some U.S. military health professionals allowed the abuse of detainees, denying them medical care and providing confidential medical information to interrogators which was then exploited.

"Some of these men really are, several years later, very severely scarred," said Barry Rosenfeld, a psychology professor at Fordham University who conducted psychological tests on six of the 11 detainees covered by the study. "It's a testimony to how bad those conditions were and how personal the abuse was."

The report came as the Senate Armed Services Committee revealed documents showing military lawyers warned the Pentagon that some of the methods it used to interrogate and hold detainees after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks violated military, U.S. and international law. Those objections were overruled by the top Pentagon lawyer, who said he was unaware of the criticism.

The Pentagon's former top lawyer, William Haynes, suddenly can't remember anything:

"I don't recall seeing this memorandum before and I'm not even sure this is one I've seen before. . . . I don't recall seeing this memorandum and I don't recall specific objections of this nature. . . . Well, I don't recall seeing this document, either. . . . I don't recall specific concerns. . . . I don't recall these and I don't recall seeing these memoranda. . . . I can't even read this document, but I don't remember seeing it. . . . I don't recall that specifically. . . . I don't remember doing that. . . . I don't recall seeing these things."

Some of the testimony released by the Senate Armed Services Committee is nauseating:

"Under the Torture Convention, torture has been prohibited by international law, but the language of the statutes is written vaguely. Severe mental and physical pain is prohibited. The mental part if explained as poorly as the physical. Severe physical pain described as anything causing permanent damage to major organs or body parts. Mental torture described as anything leading to permanent, profound damage to the senses or personality. It is basically subject to perception. If the detainee dies you're doing it wrong.

" . . . Any of these techniques that lie on the harshest end of the spectrum must be performed by a highly trained individual. Medical personnel should be present to treat any possible accidents. . . . When the CIA has wanted to use more aggressive techniques in the past, the FBI has pulled their personnel from the theatre.

" . . . if someone dies while aggressive techniques are being used, regardless of cause of death, the backlash of attention would be severely detrimental. Everything must be approved and documented."

_ Jonathan Fredman, chief counsel, CIA Counter-terrorism Center, according to the minutes of an Oct. 2, 2002, Counter Resistance Strategy Meeting.

McClatchley news service released an exhaustive report about how our detainee prorgam is going, and uncovered all sorts of evidence of torture, not to mention innocents being held and tortured for undefined lengths of time:

An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that Akhtiar was one of dozens of men — and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments. McClatchy interviewed 66 released detainees, more than a dozen local officials — primarily in Afghanistan — and U.S. officials with intimate knowledge of the detention program. The investigation also reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. military tribunal documents and other records. This unprecedented compilation shows that most of the 66 were low-level Taliban grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals.

At least seven had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government and had no ties to militants, according to Afghan local officials.

In effect, many of the detainees posed no danger to the United States or its allies. The investigation also found that despite the uncertainty about whom they were holding, U.S. soldiers beat and abused many prisoners. Prisoner mistreatment became a regular feature in cellblocks and interrogation rooms at Bagram and Kandahar air bases, the two main way stations in Afghanistan en route to Guantanamo.

Alberto Mora, Navy General Counsel from 2001–2006, makes the case for why Guantanamo and "enhanced interrogation techniques" actually kill Americans. Video.

And at least one writer tries to sum up what the recent rash of testimony means:

In fact at this point the evidence is clear and convincing, and it points to a top-down process. Figures near the top of the administration decided that they wanted brutal techniques and they hammered them through, usually over strong opposition from the ranks of professionals.

Yesterday’s hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee helped make that point, and brought a new focus on a figure who has been lurking in the shadows of the controversy for some times: William J. Haynes II, Rumsfeld’s lawyer and now a lawyer for Chevron. Two things emerge from the hearing. First, that Haynes was effectively a stationmaster when it came to introducing torture techniques in the “war on terror,” circumventing opposition from career military and pushing through a policy of brutality and cruelty, by stealth when necessary. And second, that Haynes lacks the courage of his convictions, a willingness to stand up and testify honesty about what he did. [...]

He forgot his visit in September 2002 to Guantánamo with the rest of his War Council, a most convenient memory failure about which Philippe Sands confronted him during their interview. The minutes of that visit point to many private discussions between Haynes and the Guantánamo commander. Haynes doesn’t recall those, either, but immediately after them, the process of preparing requests for highly coercive techniques begins. Haynes wants us to consider this a coincidence. Experience teaches otherwise.

And he’s forgotten all about the push from the top, originating in his office, to have the SERE (“Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape”) techniques studied as a basis for new “gloves off” interrogation techniques. Haynes had his deputy, Richard Shiffrin, launch a dialogue with SERE trainers about techniques that could be derived from their training program. This is path through which waterboarding and a number of other illegal techniques made their passage into the interrogator’s repertoire, first for the CIA and later for the military. In July 2005, Jane Mayer reported on this in a New Yorker article, and yesterday her work was validated through disclosure of the paper trail.

Anyway, there's a lot of info bubbling to the surface. Some questions:

1. If you deny that the U.S.A. has been engaged in torture, go ahead and make your case.
2. Should anyone engaged in torture be brought up on criminal charges?
3. If so, how high up the chain of command would you be willing to start? Where should such a prosecution start?
4. Why should torture be criminalized when, historically, we have never criminalized differences of policy opinion in this country?
5. If no charges are brought against anyone, what is to prevent this sort of thing happening again?
6. Can we depend on either candidate to terminate "enhanced interrogation techniques"? Do we have evidence that either of them will suspend this program?

In my mind there is no doubt that the US is engaged in torture. It should stop, and it should stop now.

*The US has renounced the use of torture by being a signatory to numerous articles of international law. The many attempts by the current administration to find loopholes in its obligations still violates the spirit if not the letter of those obligations and in my view amounts to a breach of international law.

*The use of torture undermines the attempts by the US and its allies to combat terrorism and spread the concepts of democracy and respect for human rights. By employing the tools of tyranny and thus destroying any kind of moral high ground the US may once have possessed on human rights issues the current administration has done more harm to American interests than any of the Guantanamo detainees could ever have done.

*The use of torture is incompatible with a civilized democratic society. Without respect for fundamental human rights democracy is little more than an exercise in mob rule. Otherwise, what is to stop 51% of the populace deciding that the other 49% should be exterminated? Respect for human rights is the most important prerequisite for a free and fair society; democracy should be exercised only so long as it does not infringe upon those rights. This is what has been so disastrously overlooked in bringing democracy to Iraq and it would be a catastrophe to make the same mistake in our own countries.


I will sum up by repeating the oft-quoted statement by Carlo Alberto Dalla Chiesa, in response to the suggestion that torture be used in the investigation into the kidnapping of Aldo Moro: "Italy can survive the loss of Aldo Moro. It would not survive the introduction of torture."

Personally I think the entire chain of command should be prosecuted for either carrying out torture, condoning torture (i.e. not doing anything about it), covering up/refusing to report torture, or failure to inquire about torture.
That also includes the president of course.

Realistically, I doubt anything will be done. At best those directly involved will get a slap on the hand and the higher echelons will just say "oh, but we are getting valuable information and those guys are terrorists/enemy combatants that have no rights since they just want to blow you up" crap that the general populace is all too willing to believe, considering that when waterboarding was first leaked, it was blasted by the public but when the president and his cabinet started talking about it saving american lives and only used to get info from high value detainees, there was no majority left that opposed it.

In short, the fear card is still working.

As for the current candidates, I guess Obama may try to get rid of it but being a Democrat may not be able to (they might do it behind his back or tell him of his political consequences should he do it), and McCain will keep it as it is most likely even though he used to be a tortured POW himself once.

I condone our government's use of torture on a limited basis when the results can directly influence American lives, both military and civilian. I certainly would not want my government to withold use a tool at their disposal due to international "agreements". Any student of history knows that the nations who follow such agreements to their own detriment end up finishing last.

However, this situation is not optimal. I don't particularly care about whether Ahmed is getting his fingernails pulled out, but it creates a bad PR image for the United States. I'm all for kicking around some muslim terrorist thugs, but it needs to be done away from the eyes of prying journalists or not done at all. Oh, and much more care needs to be taken to make sure they're punishing the right people...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I don't particularly care about whether Ahmed is getting his fingernails pulled out...

---

Sure, but what about when it's John, and Phil, and Betty Lou?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Sure, but what about when it's John, and Phil, and Betty Lou?

---

Betty Lou?

:laugh4:

We should stop. We are better than the pieces of trash who we capture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Sure, but what about when it's John, and Phil, and Betty Lou?

---

John Walker Lynd(sp) would have been an excellent candidate for some enhanced interrogation. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I condone our government's use of torture on a limited basis when the results can directly influence American lives, both military and civilian. I certainly would not want my government to withold use a tool at their disposal due to international "agreements". Any student of history knows that the nations who follow such agreements to their own detriment end up finishing last.

However, this situation is not optimal. I don't particularly care about whether Ahmed is getting his fingernails pulled out, but it creates a bad PR image for the United States. I'm all for kicking around some muslim terrorist thugs, but it needs to be done away from the eyes of prying journalists or not done at all. Oh, and much more care needs to be taken to make sure they're punishing the right people...

---

PJ, I thought you were smarter than this. The biggest problem isn't that the US is torturing terrorists, the biggest problem is that they are torturing completely innocent people.

And you know there are innocent people on Guantanamo. People have been released from the place, and you know they wouldn't have been released if they were guilty of anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I condone our government's use of torture on a limited basis when the results can directly influence Iranian lives, both military and civilian. I certainly would not want my government to withold use a tool at their disposal due to international "agreements". Any student of history knows that the nations who follow such agreements to their own detriment end up finishing last.

However, this situation is not optimal. I don't particularly care about whether Mark is getting his fingernails pulled out, but it creates a bad PR image for Iran. I'm all for kicking around some christian terrorist thugs, but it needs to be done away from the eyes of prying journalists or not done at all. Oh, and much more care needs to be taken to make sure they're punishing the right people...

---

If someone from Iran said the above (what you said with things replaced in bold) what would you as an American think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

John Walker Lynd(sp) would have been an excellent candidate for some enhanced interrogation. :yes:

---

So we've moved from Achmed to Americans in one easy post. Who's next?

What is the minimum threat required, in your view, to justify torture?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

We should stop. We are better than the pieces of trash who we capture.

---

Aye, that's it. Well said!

This is kinda comforting:

What both McCain and Obama seem to support, although they differ in the details, is some mechanism for detainees to challenge their incarceration status. Once Gitmo is closed and the detainees are moved to the US, McCain does not favor their being detained indefinitely without having any recourse to protest their indefinite detention. [...] For McCain, the military would oversee those hearings; for Obama, federal judges would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I know it's off most everybody's radar screen [..]

---

No it's not, but you're doing an excellent job by putting it into perspective.

The rot should stop asap.

Quote:

---

"I don't recall seeing this memorandum before and I'm not even sure this is one I've seen before. . . . I don't recall seeing this memorandum and I don't recall specific objections of this nature. . . . Well, I don't recall seeing this document, either. . . . I don't recall specific concerns. . . . I don't recall these and I don't recall seeing these memoranda. . . . I can't even read this document, but I don't remember seeing it. . . . I don't recall that specifically. . . . I don't remember doing that. . . . I don't recall seeing these things."

---

Make that man President , he is good .
Or perhaps throw him in jail for a long long time .

Quote:

---

Should anyone engaged in torture be brought up on criminal charges?

---

Yes

Quote:

---

If so, how high up the chain of command would you be willing to start? Where should such a prosecution start?

---

All the way to the top and as for the prosecutions I would suggest that as they are war crimes the trial should be held in the winning nation , so ship Rummy and co to Tehran and wave them goodbye with a happy smile .:2thumbsup:

I just can't believe the country that i always hear the goverment is incapable of running anything from is allowing torture, if you think goverment is at all untrustworthy the last thing you do is let them torture people (i wouldn't trust mother teresa to torture the right people let alone a goverment)

I don't like to invoke the slippery slope but if its good enough for terrorists why not serial killers, rapists, bank robbers ect...

If pulling a few nails out of a hatebeard is going to stop an attack, I don't know what I would do. Well I would but I wouldn't like it.

In a personal 1 on 1 situation where hurting some guy could help you save some lives (say peoples he's kidnapped and tied up) i probably would do it but the goverment cannot be trusted with this power, even if they have a gaurentee they have the right guy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

All the way to the top and as for the prosecutions I would suggest that as they are war crimes the trial should be held in the winning nation , so ship Rummy and co to Tehran and wave them goodbye with a happy smile .:2thumbsup:

---

Tribes, I do believe this is the singular most brilliant and coherent idea you've ever come up with. Hat's off sir.

Gitmo was, is, and will remain a huge cancerous sore on the US's :daisy:, and I'm ashamed of it. I seem to recall several threads on this same subject in the past, and it blew me away when multiple individuals posted that the did not think the so-called "enemy combatants" had any rights whatsoever (yes, I am positive that was the gist of what several individuals said). I for one think that everyone, even Hitler, has(-d) the right to a speedy trial, their own legal counsel, and the ability to face their accusers in an equitable legal setting. It's been what, almost 7 years? Convict the bastards or set them free, one of the two. If you can't convict them, then you failed miserably. Holding someone because you "think" they might be dangerous is a farce. There is no middle ground.

Also, why the hell am I posting here again? :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

In a personal 1 on 1 situation where hurting some guy could help you save some lives (say peoples he's kidnapped and tied up) i probably would do it but the goverment cannot be trusted with this power, even if they have a gaurentee they have the right guy...

---

People we are up against roast kids alive. If death isn't a terrifying prospect enough for this kind of people getting there should do, a little bit of wrong for the good I can live with really. Do it a few times and you won't have to anymore because the prospect is enough, I doubt it was ever any different.

Well said, Whacker. It's not a question of "how can we make sure we're torturing the right guy". There is no situation in which the use of torture is justified.

Say we have the classic "ticking bomb" situation, where we have a terrorist in custody and we know he knows where the bomb is. If we do not torture him, the bomb goes off, some people are killed, very sad. We pick up the pieces and move on, our society will survive. If we torture him, then there is no point in defusing the bomb at all because the terrorists have already won.

To torture is to commit an act of barbarous inhumanity. If we are willing to torture there is nothing that we will not be willing to do. It should be unthinkable that we would even contemplate using it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

In a personal 1 on 1 situation where hurting some guy could help you save some lives (say peoples he's kidnapped and tied up) i probably would do it but the goverment cannot be trusted with this power, even if they have a gaurentee they have the right guy...

---

So you wouldn't trust Mother Teresa nor the government to do it but you'd trust some random one person to in this case? Even when you entrust the government to handle it, its not the government doing it, but them entrusting someone else to carry it out. Still, your statements contradict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Do it a few times and you won't have to anymore because the prospect is enough,

---

I somewhat disagree here, individuals determined enough have demonstrated their general willingness to die for a cause. For these people, what could a real effective deterrent be?

Thanks PBI, but perhaps you spoke a bit too soon. :bow: In general I would concur that torture is a despicable thing, however... IF, there is an immediate need for information and lives are at stake, then I could see torture methods being a possible method to use. Still I have trouble coming to terms with that, AND as someone else pointed out, I don't trust my own government enough to believe that they can and would apply that in a reasonable manner given individual situations.

For the longest time, I didn't think we were. I thought we might be playing loud music or keeping people up, but I didn't think we really were torturing people. I thought Abu Gharib was an isolated case of some folks way off the farm. In short, I was the perfect :clown:, I bought the whole story, hook, line and sinker.

But too many stories are coming out to deny it. And not from Amnesty International or other 5th column groups. Physicians for Human Rights isn't a bunch of zealots.

It's wrong, we should stop, we should prosecute those responsible, and we should take a good long hard look at ourselves and wonder what the hell went wrong and how we can make sure it never happens again.

People that engage in or allow in such behavior to protect their security don't deserve it. We're better than this, and I would say if the only way to protect America is to rip Ahmed's fingernails out, then we're already dead.

The worst part is, I've gotten so cynical over all of this, I question why I'm even voting anymore. Obama and McCain signed spending bills and authorizatons knowing full well what was going on. This isn't a Democrat/Republican thing. It's an American thing, and it's something we should all be ashamed of.

If torture is illegal then we shouldn't be doing it. We definitely shouldn't make the experience comfortable and I don't believe waterboarding is torture in essence, but torture is illegal according to our own laws even for foreigners. There is an excuse for straddling the line, but if you do that and cross it you have broken the law and can be prosecuted.

I believe that there should be oversight and I believe that it should occur using a different system; whether we use a military/civilian hybrid system or what. Nobody said we couldn't form a hybrid tribunal and use an expidited and transparent system, did they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Once Gitmo is closed and the detainees are moved to the US...

---

Exactly how is that "comforting"? :inquisitive:

It's comforting because these men will be put into some sort of legal process. Also, the level of mistreatment and "enhanced interrogation" will be a lot lower on U.S. soil, since the whole dodge of a legal limbo will be irrelevant.

Punish the guilty, sort out the innocent and the irrelevant. That's how our system is supposed to work. Our laws and our systems are plenty tough enough to take care of terrorists. Already done so, and we'll do it again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

But too many stories are coming out to deny it. And not from Amnesty International or other 5th column groups. Physicians for Human Rights isn't a bunch of zealots.

---

Here's the thing though- they tracked 11 people iirc. The seven worst cases were all from Abu Ghraib. I don't think many would dispute that horrible things went on there, but I think it's very arguable if they were systematic abuses or more isolated. The remaining 4 were more about "mental" abuse such as threats against themselves or their families, or sleep deprivation or temperature extremes. I don't doubt the group either, but you have to read what's actually said.

FWIW, I'm one of the four who voted the third choice. By asking if the "USA" has been engaging in torture, I take it to mean practicing systemic torture- I don't think that's the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Punish the guilty, sort out the innocent and the irrelevant. That's how our system is supposed to work. Our laws and our systems are plenty tough enough to take care of terrorists. Already done so, and we'll do it again.

---

Yousef is a poor example to push the "Obama doctrine" with. He was little more than a foot soldier- he was arrested, but leadership higher up was unaffected and left to continue their nefarious work. One might even cite that as the failure of the "prosectution" approach to terrorists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Yousef is a poor example to push the "Obama doctrine" with. He was little more than a foot soldier- he was arrested, but leadership higher up was unaffected and left to continue their nefarious work. One might even cite that as the failure of the "prosectution" approach to terrorists.

---

Oh, last I checked we nailed at least one of the "higher-ups." And convicting the ******s who did the deed ain't nothing to sniff at, either. Would you rather see these men serving their legal sentences and attracting no attention while they rot away in Federal prison, or would you rather they sit in legal limbo in Cuba serving as a symbol and inspiration for every jihadi wanna-be? I fear i know the answer to that one ...

Quote:

---

And convicting the ******s who did the deed ain't nothing to sniff at, either.

---

And it only took 4yrs to do. Four years spent trying to catch and convict a low-level bomber- the equivalent of which would appear to be a dime a dozen in places like Iraq. What effect did convicting him have on Al Qaeda's operations?

Rahman, at least, seemed to have a planning role in attacks. Unfortunately, his trial blew the cover off of the cell phone surveillance that we had been using against Al Qaeda when the prosecution was forced to disclose the list of unindicted co-conspirators. Another ringing endorsement of the "Obama doctrine". :shrug:

Quote:

---

Would you rather see these men serving their legal sentences and attracting no attention while they rot away in Federal prison, or would you rather they sit in legal limbo in Cuba serving as a symbol and inspiration for every jihadi wanna-be?

---

Do you think Rahman hasn't been a rally-cry for jihadists just because he's sitting in jail instead of Gitmo? :dizzy2:

I really dont know what to think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Another ringing endorsement of the "Obama doctrine".

---

And when McCain has trials on U.S. turf with detainees able to question their incarceration, will that also be a manifestation of the "Obama doctrine"? Face it, Xiahou, the Bush doctrine is done, kaput, finished, feeling poorly, D.O.A. It's over. A legal process will be put in place, and the Guantanamo vacation from the rule of law is over. Military JAGs want it over, career FBI guys want it over, rank-and-file military types want it over, most commanding officers want it over ... I mean, really, who wants to keep it going? John Yoo, Doug Feith, Dick Cheney and (apparently) you. Small crowd.

The war on terror is going to move toward a more legal footing, and there's nothing that can change that. The cowboy days of "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" are over. I'm not even clear on why you're giving sole credit to Senator Obama, except perhaps some sort of attempt to paint him as Soft On Terror.

EDIT:

I blame society for my inability to post coherently...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

And when McCain has trials on U.S. turf with detainees able to question their incarceration, will that also be a manifestation of the "Obama doctrine"?

---

To his credit, McCain came out strongly against the recent SCOTUS decision. He seems to believe that the detainees are best handled in military tribunals, not civillian courts. So did congress- they setup the laws authorizing the tribunals. McCain has also blasted Obama for his law-enforcement approach to terrorism.

So you wouldn't trust Mother Teresa nor the government to do it but you'd trust some random one person to in this case?

I was referring to myself not a random stranger, also the guy would have to be the right guy and torture would yield the right result, i was basically discussing the only reason i could condone torture, its a pretty improbable situation.

Even when you entrust the government to handle it, its not the government doing it, but them entrusting someone else to carry it out.

Hell, that is even worse, though i would assume most goverments would keep oversight, unless of course they wanted deniability.....

with oversight it is bad enough but with agoverment trying to keep its distance its much worse...

Still, your statements contradict.

simply your misunderstanding...

People we are up against roast kids alive.

This is why we have things like law and human rights, so there is a clear difference for most rational people to see between us and them, why try and blur the boundarys, lets be the good guys and let them be the bad guys, it isn't completely black and white so lets stop smudging...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

They want you dead morons, and no matter how high on the evolutionary though patterns of liberal BS you present yourself on, these guys will kill you. Take them at their word.

---

Yes, Dave, the terrorists want us dead. Are we to assume that every person picked up is a terrorist? Are we to assume that every person detained is a throat-slitting jihadi? If we don't assume that every single person picked up is an evil *******, how should we go about sorting them out? Put down the partisan crack pipe and think about it, friend. Do you want to re-invent the entire criminal justice system from scratch? Or do you want to kill them all and let God sort them out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Yes, Dave, the terrorists want us dead. Are we to assume that every person picked up is a terrorist? Are we to assume that every person detained is a throat-slitting jihadi? If we don't assume that every single person picked up is an evil *******, how should we go about sorting them out? Put down the partisan crack pipe and think about it, friend. Do you want to re-invent the entire criminal justice system from scratch? Or do you want to kill them all and let God sort them out?

---

Then we should look into our history and do what we did in the 40's. Find them on the battleground fighting, kill them on the spot, instead of capturing them and running the risk of liberals everywhere chaping themselves while they perform oral stimulation to these guys. And its not "re-inventing" the legal system. They are illegal enemy combatants and we've dealt with this thing before. What did your boy FDR do with those Nazis that washed up on our shores? He didn't give them three meals a day and let them bark at the moon for 5. He tried them in a military tribunal them fried their asses in less than 2 months. Look it up. Of course it might give you nightmares at the thought of bad people being actually punished for doing bad things.

Dave, if it were simply a matter if finding the guy on the battlefield with the gun and killing him, we already do that. When we find people who are trying to hurt our people, guess what we do? We shoot them! Huzzah!

The detainees are usually turned in by other tribesmen, or rounded up when we go looking for the terrorists, you know, the guys who do not run around on a battlefield with guns, but rather the cowards who plant bombs and engage in this thing called terrorism.

So we get mobs of detainees, and we have to sort them out somehow. Now stop self-pleasuring by accusing everyone who disagrees with you as being a soft-kneed terror-loving America-hater, and THINK for a minute. If you've got a room with ten guys who've been turned over by their Pushtun brothers, who swear that each one is a "high value detainee," how do you sort them out? And if you've flown them to Cuba, and they're in our custody, what do you do with them?

Lay off the accusations and ad hominems and think about it for more than sixty consecutive seconds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Dave, if it were simply a matter if finding the guy on the battlefield with the gun and killing him, we already do that. When we find people who are trying to hurt our people, guess what we do? We shoot them! Huzzah!

The detainees are usually turned in by other tribesmen, or rounded up when we go looking for the terrorists, you know, the guys who do not run around on a battlefield with guns, but rather the cowards who plant bombs and engage in this thing called terrorism.

So we get mobs of detainees, and we have to sort them out somehow. Now stop self-pleasuring by accusing everyone who disagrees with you as being a soft-kneed terror-loving America-hater, and THINK for a minute. If you've got a room with ten guys who've been turned over by their Pushtun brothers, who swear that each one is a "high value detainee," how do you sort them out? And if you've flown them to Cuba, and they're in our custody, what do you do with them?

Lay off the accusations and ad hominems and think about it for more than sixty consecutive seconds.

---

I send all 10 of them to Paradise where they can bang some virgins and have a nice bath. This is a war between "civilizations". There will come a day when you will have to choose. I know what side I'm on, do you?

Bah, forget all this thinking nonsense, let's just get medieval.

Waterboard em all for 24 hours straight. Those that die were innocent. Those that live are guilty, and should be burnt at the stake.

Problem solved. Close thraed.

--------------SNIP-------------

:balloon2:

So, for you the answer really is kill them all and let God sort them out. There's only one small problem with that strategy. If we kill innocent men (and we will if we do nothing to sort out the innocent from the wicked) we will create more terrorists as the population reacts to our savagery. Now if we're willing to keep going, to get truly Roman on the issue and just keep decimating the population until their will to resist us fades, this can be a workable strategy. But we would need to be willing to kill a lot of innocent people.

Do you think the American people are ready to mass-execute Afghans and Iraqis? Do we have what it takes to get Roman about it? If not, what other strategies might be workable?

-edit-

P.S.: As to which side I'm on, I'm on the side of America, a land of laws and liberties. I'm on the side of the Constitution and the tripartite separation of powers. I'm not clear that any of this means anything to you. From your bloodthirsty babble, you could just as easily be pledging yourself to a race war for North Korea, Italy, Madagascar or Serbia. Nothing very American about anything you're saying.

I propose we have some sort of military panel to review the status of detainees. That should separate most of the wheat from the chaff. Why does that sound familiar.....:idea2:

And as that raging liberal, Goerge F. Will (and his Commie fello-travellers the Cato Institute) pointed out, the Executive branch cannot police itself. This is a separation of powers issue.

No state power is more fearsome than the power to imprison. Hence the habeas right has been at the heart of the centuries-long struggle to constrain governments, a struggle in which the greatest event was the writing of America's Constitution, which limits Congress's power to revoke habeas corpus to periods of rebellion or invasion. Is it, as McCain suggests, indefensible to conclude that Congress exceeded its authority when, with the Military Commissions Act (2006), it withdrew any federal court jurisdiction over the detainees' habeas claims?

As the conservative and libertarian Cato Institute argued in its amicus brief in support of the petitioning detainees, habeas, in the context of U.S. constitutional law, "is a separation of powers principle" involving the judicial and executive branches. The latter cannot be the only judge of its own judgment.

And what do you gain by re-creating our justice system -- but this time with 100% less checks and balances! All power to the Executive Branch! At least, for so long as it's held by a Republican ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Do you think the American people are ready to mass-execute Afghans and Iraqis? Do we have what it takes to get Roman about it? If not, what other strategies might be workable?

---

Let me let you in on a little secret about this issue.... Ther is NO answer to terrorism of the Islamic kind. Regardless of what action you take; the "kill them all" (me) or the "swing by their grape nuts" (you), they will not stop. As long as there is Islam and as long as their is a Western culture, there is going to be a problem. Its always been like that and not a damn thing is goin to change it. So there you go. You can get pissed off at my obtuseness an i can post 10,000 posts about how you guys should stop kissing their goat smelling asses, but it won't do a damn bit of good. So there you go.

Oh, I forgot to mention...
I love you my little monkey man....:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

If someone from Iran said the above (what you said with things replaced in bold) what would you as an American think?

---

If Mark was engaged in terrorist or insurgent activities against the Iranian government, its really none of my business.

I agree with Dave. Taking these people to Gitmo simply creates an unnecessary spectacle. By allowing journalists to uncover this stuff, we've really taken on a public relations nightmare. There needs to be more battlefield neutralizations of lower level people, and if we are forced to torture someone, they do not need to live to tell their story. Placing battlefield combatants under civilian courts would be disastrous.

Again, torture should be held as a last resort for only those that we are certain are terrorists.

Quote:

---

I know what side I'm on, do you?

---

Dave is on the side of the lunatics .

Quote:

---

I agree with Dave. Taking these people to Gitmo simply creates an unnecessary spectacle. By allowing journalists to uncover this stuff, we've really taken on a public relations nightmare.

---

So much for having a democratic government that is accountabe to the people then .

Quote:

---

There needs to be more battlefield neutralizations of lower level people, and if we are forced to torture someone, they do not need to live to tell their story. Placing battlefield combatants under civilian courts would be disastrous.

Again, torture should be held as a last resort for only those that we are certain are terrorists.

---

Absolute bollox , your attempt at making your position seem reasonable completely shows your position to be utter bollox .
One thing you refuse to understand is these people are not taken on the "battlefield" unless you want to define battlefield as anywhere in the world at any time ...which means that these measures they propose apply to everyone everywhere .

So the proposal put forward here amount to torture and summary executions for anyone anywhere...oh and don't let the press and public know about it :dizzy2:.... .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So much for having a democratic government that is accountabe to the people then .

---

You feel a government must offer full disclosure of every action taken during sensitive security operations? I don't think any government fits that criteria, or is willing to do so.

Quote:

---

One thing some muppets refuse to understand is these people are not taken on the "battlefield" unless you want to define battlefield as anywhere in the world at any time ...which means that these measures they propose apply to everyone everywhere .

---

The nature of the conflict determines the battlefield, not the government and certainly not myself or Dave. In asymmmetric situations such the two wars in the Middle East or even the greater War on Terror, the battlefield can be defined as an entire nation or region depending on the circumstances.

If Coalition forces know of a bombmaking house and eliminate the threat, would they be considered battefield casualties? What about a known terrorist leader plucked out of his car by SF as he was driving to the gas station? If he is operating in the area, he has made that area a battlefield.

Quote:

---

:....frigging nutcases crawl back under the rock with the fundy lunatics where you belong .

---

And to think, certain moderators feel I am disrespectful. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The detainees are usually turned in by other tribesmen, or rounded up when we go looking for the terrorists, you know, the guys who do not run around on a battlefield with guns, but rather the cowards who plant bombs and engage in this thing called terrorism.

---

Quoted for emphasis.

Quote:

---

If he is operating in the area, he has made that area a battlefield.

---

Exactly Panzer , which means that your approval of torture and summary executions applies to everyone anywhere in the world at any time ...and you want it to be unnaccountable too :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

You feel a government must offer full disclosure of every action taken during sensitive security operations?

---

Errrrrrr...a government must act within the law no matter what and be held fully accountble for breaking the law . If it wasn't for the disclosure innocent people would probably still be getting beaten to death in secret prisons run by your government around the world .

Quote:

---

And to think, certain moderators feel I am disrespectful.

---

The views you and Dave espoused are so contemptable they cannot be afforded any degree of respect whatsoever .:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

As long as there is Islam and as long as their is a Western culture, there is going to be a problem. Its always been like that and not a damn thing is goin to change it. So there you go. You can get pissed off at my obtuseness an i can post 10,000 posts about how you guys should stop kissing their goat smelling asses, but it won't do a damn bit of good. So there you go.

---

DevDave, when you became a Senior Member I pleaded with you to go gentle on the inflatables. Turns out you are one of them yourself, filled to bursting point with irrational hatred. It undermines any statement you make on the issues. You could try to make the point that Arab culture traditionally respects brute force. The case could be made, quite eloquently, without resorting to insult. If that was what you tried to do, you failed miserably.

Yeah DevDave stop pretending you are not cool, you belong with us, the rejected :yes:

For those who cling to the fantasy that waterboarding was only used three times, Dan Levin, formerly of the President's office of legal counsel would like to correct your notion:

As a witness sitting here in a hearing, I feel like I have some obligation to say something about this. And I'm very limited, I think, in what I can say. But if the subcommittee has been informed that there was a total of three minutes of waterboarding, I would suggest the subcommittee should go back and get that clarified, because that I don't believe is an accurate statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry

Well said, Whacker. It's not a question of "how can we make sure we're torturing the right guy". There is no situation in which the use of torture is justified.

Say we have the classic "ticking bomb" situation, where we have a terrorist in custody and we know he knows where the bomb is. If we do not torture him, the bomb goes off, some people are killed, very sad. We pick up the pieces and move on, our society will survive. If we torture him, then there is no point in defusing the bomb at all because the terrorists have already won.

To torture is to commit an act of barbarous inhumanity. If we are willing to torture there is nothing that we will not be willing to do. It should be unthinkable that we would even contemplate using it.

---

I have a very similar take on it, but from a particularly religious perspective. Given a 'ticking bomb' situation with torture as the only way to save American (or British, or whatever) lives, you're exchanging saving American lives for losing American souls. The effect torture has on those who commit it is not worth any possible results it may obtain.

We must be better than this, not only for the sakes of potentially innocent victims, but for our own sakes as well.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

I have a very similar take on it, but from a particularly religious perspective. Given a 'ticking bomb' situation with torture as the only way to save American (or British, or whatever) lives, you're exchanging saving American lives for losing American souls. The effect torture has on those who commit it is not worth any possible results it may obtain.

We must be better than this, not only for the sakes of potentially innocent victims, but for our own sakes as well.

Ajax

---

Very well said, sir, and very in keeping with my own views on these matters. There are things much worse than the death of the body. And similarly, I also find myself agreeing with PoorBloodyInfantry.

They should start at OLC, and work their way up to the top. Ignoring it for political expediency in the hopes that it goes away when Bush leaves office is the worst thing that could happen. Our elected leaders must understand that they are not above the law and are accountable for their actions. Rule of law, and all that jazz.


Never going to happen though. Not enough vertebrae in Congress, and too many enablers on both sides trying to cover themselves. Kucinich will have more articles for his impeachment resolution when he resubmits it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Again, torture should be held as a last resort for only those that we are certain are terrorists.

---

That's impossible. If you support torturing "only terrorists", but you do not want such things as trials etc, then you have to know that you are supporting the torture of completely innocent persons.

There is a reason we have courts and don't just let the police throw criminals in jail, you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That's impossible. If you support torturing "only terrorists", but you do not want such things as trials etc, then you have to know that you are supporting the torture of completely innocent persons.

There is a reason we have courts and don't just let the police throw criminals in jail, you know.

---

No worries, everyone arrested is assured to be guilty and everyone pointed out after "enhanced interogation" methods are an assured collaborator. :logic:

Anyone wondering where you can find the mentality that led to S-21 needs only to see this thread. :no:


BTW, Don exactly who is the Amnesty International supporting that's planning to invade the US (aka the other 4 columns)? Benevolent aliens?

I've thought about this for a bit, and have reached a conclusion.

I am against torture. The reality is however, I am for it, in very limited situations. For example, if we captured someone who is a suspected terrorist, and they claim to have knowledge or participated in setting up a bomb that will go off within hours intended to kill others, and the refuse to talk and other means exhausted, I would support torture methods to extract the information needed to save lives. Perhaps some will remember that episode of CSI where they have a serial killer who has a woman locked away and refuses to talk, they end up realizing one of his fears and shove him in a dark closet for a minute until he talks, and they end up rescuing the woman at the last second. This is the exact type of situation that I would support it's use, and again ONLY to the extent needed to obtain the accurate information needed to avert an immediate potentially fatal disaster. As to those who have mentioned that they'd be willing to let others die, sorry, I personally find that disgusting. Yes, torture is an absolutely despicable thing that should never be used except in the absolute minimum of most extreme time-critical cases, but I am not willing to allow others to die because of it, especially when I think that it may be my loved ones who may be the ones who may die. In general however, torture should never be used at all.

That said, I do not remotely trust my government enough to use good judgment in determining when something should be used (which according to the criteria I gave, is going to be just about never I imagine, maybe 0.00000000000000001% of the time), much less word guidelines that would extremely limit and put bounds around usage. As such, I have to lean towards no, it should not be used. I can only hope then that there may be some reasonable people out there dealing with these situations, who would use their own good judgment when presented with a bad situation and deal with it appropriately and not pay for their actions, like the cops did in CSI. Kind of a bleak, morbid outlook, huh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

I am against torture. The reality is however, I am for it, in very limited situations. For example, if we captured someone who is a suspected terrorist, and they claim to have knowledge or participated in setting up a bomb that will go off within hours intended to kill others, and the refuse to talk and other means exhausted, I would support torture methods to extract the information needed to save lives.

---

They keyword here is "suspected", isn't it? What if the guy really didn't know anything? How can you tell the difference between someone who's lying about not knowing anything, and someone who actually doesn't know a thing?

Also, it's a pretty well-known fact that torture makes people willing to say absolutely anything to make the torture stop. How do you know whether you got correct information or fake info?

Returning to your bomb scenario, what if the US captures a terrorist who knows or they think knows the location of a bomb that'll go off soon. They torture him, and he says what they want him to. They scuttle off to find the bomb, but in the meantime, the bomb has already gone off at the real location while they where chasing an imaginary bomb... Sounds nice?

Going back to the question of what can/should be done, I suspect any justice will be meted out by non-U.S. forces. Maybe no European vacations for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Yoo, or any of those chaps.

Is it likely that prosecutions will be brought overseas? Yes. It is reasonably likely. Sands's book contains an interview with an investigating magistrate in a European nation, which he describes as a NATO nation with a solidly pro-American orientation which supported U.S. engagement in Iraq with its own soldiers. The magistrate makes clear that he is already assembling a case, and is focused on American policymakers. I read these remarks and they seemed very familiar to me. In the past two years, I have spoken with two investigating magistrates in two different European nations, both pro-Iraq war NATO allies. Both were assembling war crimes charges against a small group of Bush administration officials. "You can rest assured that no charges will be brought before January 20, 2009," one told me. And after that? "It depends. We don't expect extradition. But if one of the targets lands on our territory or on the territory of one of our cooperating jurisdictions, then we'll be prepared to act."

I would have to say that this is flawed, Whacker.

How do you tell if he has knowledge of an imminent fatal attack/event? He is unlikely to tell you most of the time. Will you trust the intelligence services who claim he does? The people who arrested him? Some witness who *thinks* it may be him?

Its completely open to manipulation and in the end, after torture, all you can say is "oh, I'm sorry for ruining your life forever and torturing you, but I thought you knew information that was vital...you understand, right? *innocent smile*"

Yes, and where one draws the line in terms of who you "know" is guilty gets really fuzzy really fast. And if you throw out every tool we've developed over two-and-a-half centuries to sort out the guilty from the innocent ... ugh. To think the people who advocate this radical, revolutionary, wholesale re-making call themselves "conservatives." The mind boggles.

Well, you know. We could just...erhm. Leave the Middle East alone. I'd be awefully pissed if Saudi Arabia came over here and said "its okay we're here to help you transition from Democracy into a Shari'a Law ran Caliphate." I dunno. Can of worms...

By the By. I do think we need to get rid of Guantanamo, and stop any sort of Torture immediately. It may be a clash of cultures and "civilization" but we have to prove we're the better man.

Nice article Lemur

Quote:

---

Colin Powell's chief of staff, Colonel Larry Wilkerson, nails it: "Haynes, Feith, Yoo, Bybee, Gonzales and--at the apex--Addington, should never travel outside the U.S., except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel.

---

It really shows it for what it is if it is suggested that their only safe destinations will be a country where some of its politicians and military cannot travel for fear of arrest and a couintry run by fundamentalist nutters whose citizens were the ones who attacked NY in the first place .
Though to be fair I would add North Korea , Burma and Zimbabwe to the list , those countries leadership would probably be see nothing wrong at all with people doing torture and detention without trial so they should be safe there .

I do have one question for all the pro terrorist folks here...
What do you do with the one's that their own countries of origins won't take back? Shall we provide them a nice comfy place at Lemur's or Tribsey's? What shall we do with them once we've spent billions on trial from their new "rights" under the Constitution that we so stupidly just granted them even though they are not even citizens?

I do have one question for all the pro terrorist folks here...

Excuse me ? Pro-terrorist ? if there is a pro-terrorist crowd it is the people who support torture they are the ones making us like them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Exactly Panzer , which means that your approval of torture and summary executions applies to everyone anywhere in the world at any time

---

Where in the world did you come up with that? Allow me to correct the record.

Exactly Panzer , which means that your approval of torture and summary executions applies to known terrorists anywhere in the world at any time

Quote:

---

Errrrrrr...a government must act within the law no matter what and be held fully accountble for breaking the law .

---

I will take your avoidance of the secrecy issue, and move to a legal footing where you believe you have more room to maneuver, as a ceded point.

Democratic governments have been forced to change, avoid, and even break laws during wartime. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, FDR detained hundreds of thousands of American citizens, and I will get into some of the nasty habits the British engaged in during WW2 in a moment.

Trying to fit the death and destruction brought about during wartime into a legal framework has always been difficult, and is contrary to the very nature of armed conflict. Add to that the fact that international war treaties were designed for nation versus nation engagements, and you can see how trying to apply those laws to terrorists may not be the best approach.

Quote:

---

The views you and Dave espoused are so contemptable they cannot be afforded any degree of respect whatsoever .:yes:

---

Quite the contrary, sir. I believe torture as a tool should be kept on the table for only the most high level and/or high value detainees. This should always be done in proxy countries and much more effort should be taken to keep it secret.

I also believe that the ROEs should be loosened and more mid to low level terrorists should be eliminated instead of detained. Trying to conduct trials for these people would be counterproductive as finding witnesses, evidence, etc in a war zone is next to impossible. The British knew this during WW2, and thus undertook a broad assassination campaign of known SS and committed nazis directly after the war. I think that if asked, most Westerners would support their government taking every step possible to hunt down and neutralize terrorist threats.

As for those lower level people that are detained, or their status is not certain, they should not be tortured. I creates an enormous image problem and there is a possibility of torturing innocent people

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I do have one question for all the pro terrorist folks here...
What do you do with the one's that their own countries of origins won't take back? Shall we provide them a nice comfy place at Lemur's or Tribsey's? What shall we do with them once we've spent billions on trial from their new "rights" under the Constitution that we so stupidly just granted them even though they are not even citizens?

---

Well said, Dave.

I say we put the beasts right where they belong -- Guantanamo Bay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan198

Well said, Dave.

---

Amusingly said, sure. Energetically said, okay. But "well" said? Look, I got big love for the DevDave, but when he goes off on a partisan rant about how anyone who doesn't embrace torture is a terrorist-loving fifth columnist offering his children up to bin Laden, well, let's just say that his reasoning doesn't quite match up to his prose.

Dave, come back and talk to use when you're sober and you feel like making real points.

Quote:

---

Democratic governments have been forced to change, avoid, and even break laws during wartime. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, FDR detained hundreds of thousands of American citizens, and I will get into some of the nasty habits the British engaged in during WW2 in a moment.

---

yes Panzer and they remain stains on their history .

Quote:

---

I do have one question for all the pro terrorist folks here...

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: Pathetic , so lame if that is the best you can come up with surely even you must realise you have no leg to stand on . Then again maybe you cannot realise due to mental block .

Quote:

---

Quite the contrary, sir.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Panzer .....I believe torture as a tool should be kept on the table for only the most high level and/or high value detainees. This should always be done in proxy countries and much more effort should be taken to keep it secret.
even more contemptable , especially when you propose summary execution of suspects who you don't consider worth torturing .

Nice Post Grizzly , but I don't think certain people can understand that , something to do with being nuttier than a sack of almonds :yes:

Though to be fair Panzer does OK here....

Quote:

---

Trying to fit the death and destruction brought about during wartime into a legal framework has always been difficult, and is contrary to the very nature of armed conflict. Add to that the fact that international war treaties were designed for nation versus nation engagements, and you can see how trying to apply those laws to terrorists may not be the best approach.

---

...up until the first(,)after that as usual he falls apart .

Two-star general accuses White House of war crimes. The hits keep coming ...

"In order for these individuals to suffer the wanton cruelty to which they were subjected, a government policy was promulgated to the field whereby the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice were disregarded. The UN Convention Against Torture was indiscriminately ignored ....

"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Man, this is Administration is going down in Flames faster than the USS Arizona.

Breaking the geneva conventions isn't necesarily a warcrime, he should know that. Sounds like pounding.

I think its a short walk from justifying torture to justifying blowing buildings full of civilians, justifying decapiating captured individuals isn't too far removed from summary executions.

Isn't it ironic that those who consider themselves on the complete opposite side to Al Qaeda have actually come full circle and pretty much believe in the same things that they do, frag panzer devdave you should sit down and chat with some of the Al Qaeda nutters you would be surprised on how much you could agree on... their not weak kneed lefties like us they are happy to torture and kill without a moments thought of thier victims innocence...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Breaking the geneva conventions isn't necesarily a warcrime, he should know that. Sounds like pounding.

---

Breaking the Geneva Conventions isn't something to do lightly, and it can very well be a war crime. Note that the general also points out that the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the United Nations Convention Against Torture (which we signed, BTW) were violated as well. Still sound like "pounding" to you?

What I know of what Abu Graib disgusts me but most of all because it served no purpose other then humiliation, but it's no template or anything for the use of 'moderate pressure' or torture if you want, and shouldn't be treated as such. Yes it still sounds like pounding to me.

@Grizzly, you are of course 100% right no denying that it is wrong. But this isn't a perfect world let's not get ahead of ourselve just because all is fine and dandy here there are bad folks out there who see the way you think only as a weakness. It's good to have morals but morals don't exist to feel good about yourselve, play well and lose isn't a value if you ask me it's just stupid.

edit, if I had to give up a little bit of myselve to save others I would do it and pull these nail and feel horrible for the rest of my life, but you would rather sacrifice these people for your personal integrity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

edit, if I had to give up a little bit of myselve to save others I would do it and pull these nail and feel horrible for the rest of my life, but you would rather sacrifice these people for your personal integrity?

---

This is exactly the point I made earlier. If I had to choose between pulling nails and waterboarding to save lives, or not doing so when I am near 100% positive based on relevant info I have the "right" person and they're not talking and I've exhausted all other possible non-torture methods, it's a no-brainer choice for me. I'd rather feel a little dirty the rest of my life than carrying people's blood on my hands knowing that I most likely could have saved them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Democratic governments have been forced to change, avoid, and even break laws during wartime. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, FDR detained hundreds of thousands of American citizens, and I will get into some of the nasty habits the British engaged in during WW2 in a moment.

Trying to fit the death and destruction brought about during wartime into a legal framework has always been difficult, and is contrary to the very nature of armed conflict. Add to that the fact that international war treaties were designed for nation versus nation engagements, and you can see how trying to apply those laws to terrorists may not be the best approach.

---

We aren't at war. We are in a half-@$$ed executive branch intervention with limited political support from the branch responsible for declaring wars (financial support is there for political reasons, opponents aren't going to strand the troops and be labeled freedom-fry eating surrender monkeys).

So Congress relinquished it's power to the executive, and the executive promptly abused it. No big surprise there. If Congress had declared a proper war, I probably wouldn't be so concerned about a lot of the freedom-taking the administration has been doing, as long as they put post-war expiration clauses in. Instead, we have an administration that declared a war it can't, invaded a country it shouldn't, ignored the civil liberties of it's citizens, disregarded treaties as meaningless, and wrote it's own rules on running the "war". All of this was done purposefully with aforethought, and accompanied with an attempt to politicize the judicial process and maintain a permanent majority within the country. Sounds peachy to me! ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

when I am near 100% positive based on relevant info I have the "right" person

---

The point is that this will simply never happen in the real world, that's just a theoretical situation.

Quote:

---

even more contemptable , especially when you propose summary execution of suspects who you don't consider worth torturing .

---

Summary executions of terrorists does sound appealing, doesn't it? :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

I think its a short walk from justifying torture to justifying blowing buildings full of civilians, justifying decapiating captured individuals isn't too far removed from summary executions.

Isn't it ironic that those who consider themselves on the complete opposite side to Al Qaeda have actually come full circle and pretty much believe in the same things that they do, frag panzer devdave you should sit down and chat with some of the Al Qaeda nutters you would be surprised on how much you could agree on... their not weak kneed lefties like us they are happy to torture and kill without a moments thought of thier victims innocence...

---

Good point. I, of course, don't agree, but its important to keep such things in my when playing hardball.