Torture Techniques Revealed at Gitmo

[Vladimir]

He needs the Geneva conventions, not a fair trial....

Sure, if they applied. I can't go shoot up a Russian military base and expect them.

[doc_bean]

Sure, if they applied. I can't go shoot up a Russian military base and expect them.

Well technically, it would be exquivalent to the Russian coming to the US, blowing stuff up, you taking you gun, firing at them and then getting captured and taken to Russia.

Not quite the same situation. While I don't want to argue about the validity of the war in Afghanistan, the US was still the invading force, and a lot of people attacking US soldiers where doing so to protect themselves and/or their family and/or their assest, or at least believed they needed to be protected against 'the americans'.

[Redleg]

Well technically, it would be exquivalent to the Russian coming to the US, blowing stuff up, you taking you gun, firing at them and then getting captured and taken to Russia.

Not exactly. The individual would have to have been from say Canada or Mexico.

Not quite the same situation. While I don't want to argue about the validity of the war in Afghanistan, the US was still the invading force, and a lot of people attacking US soldiers where doing so to protect themselves and/or their family and/or their assest, or at least believed they needed to be protected against 'the americans'.

Some that are held in Gitmo might fit that catergory but the majority should be those who are not native citizens of Afganstan. Now the problem that we all face is that we don't know the full story, to much is being left out, and then there is the futher mudding of the waters of prisoners not being captured in Afganstan or Iraq. If such prisoners exist then the United States is clearly in the wrong.

[Strike For The South]

So as long as we have the same veiw on Human rights as Russia were ok? Thats like saying our economys like Sierra Leones I think were on the right track.

[Redleg]

So as long as we have the same veiw on Human rights as Russia were ok? Thats like saying our economys like Sierra Leones I think were on the right track.

Never stated such a thing. try again or point out who you were directing your statement toward

[doc_bean]

Some that are held in Gitmo might fit that catergory but the majority should be those who are not native citizens of Afganstan.

Not something I've heard (often) before. Do you happen to have proof of this ?

[Redleg]

Not something I've heard (often) before. Do you happen to have proof of this ?

Just some information from globalsecurity.org that I would like to believe is correct. Again in the absence of real facts I am hestiant to reach a firm conclusion about Gitmo any longer. Several detainee's have been shown to have been brought in from outside Afganstan and Iraq.

However here is the statement I was refering to.

According to one report, to qualify for transfer and detention at Camp Delta, Guantanamo, prisoners taken in Afghanistan must meet any one of the following criteria:

Be a foreign national;
Have received training from Al-Qaeda; or
Be in command of 300 or more personnel

[Zaknafien]

hm, just from personal experience in Afghanistan I can attest that battalions are pressured to create a plausible story for each candidate for detention in order to "send them away". I know of many such detainees that were sent to the BTIF and later to Camp Delta on less than solid reasons, and a true lack of anything we in the western world call "evidence".

[Redleg]

hm, just from personal experience in Afghanistan I can attest that battalions are pressured to create a plausible story for each candidate for detention in order to "send them away". I know of many such detainees that were sent to the BTIF and later to Camp Delta on less than solid reasons, and a true lack of anything we in the western world call "evidence".

Then as a soldier you should provide evidence to Congress - via your congressman that illegal activities are being conducted. By not doing so you are complaciant in any illegal activity.

But then plausible implies a believable theory - so which one is it - is it completely made up or is it at least plausible evidence that would support an initial charge?

You can't have it both ways if your directly involved in the situation. ITs either one or the other.

[Strike For The South]

Sure, if they applied. I can't go shoot up a Russian military base and expect them.

Even if these men are illegal combatants why torture them? Doesnt that make us just as bad as the people we are figthing? I thought we were doing this to eradicate horrible people who dont respect basic human rights but its ok for us to do it if there "illegal" combatants? .

[Zaknafien]

the time when America stood for liberty and justice for the world is long over, now we're simply a force for mercantilism and imperialist oppression. Its up to patriotic citizens to reclaim our republic and change the epoch to the country's founding ideals.

[English assassin]

Most if not all people there can be considered guilty. You don't capture someone shooting and launching RPGs at you and say: "Wait! He needs a fair trial!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
He needs the Geneva conventions, not a fair trial....

Sure, if they applied. I can't go shoot up a Russian military base and expect them.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. EITHER he is a combatant, in which case he needs the geneva convention, OR he is a criminal, in which case he needs a fair trial. There is no third way.

When we caught people shooting and launching RPGs at British troops in Northern ireland a fair trial is EXACTLY what we gave them*

*with the occasional unfair one thrown in just so Michael Mansfield QC could make some wedge

[Vladimir]

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. EITHER he is a combatant, in which case he needs the geneva convention, OR he is a criminal, in which case he needs a fair trial. There is no third way.

When we caught people shooting and launching RPGs at British troops in Northern ireland a fair trial is EXACTLY what we gave them*

*with the occasional unfair one thrown in just so Michael Mansfield QC could make some wedge

There is a difference between legal and illegal combatants. The former is covered and the latter is not. Once their legitimacy is verified then the conventions can be applied. If they are illegal combatants, then they are just criminals.

The only reason war isn't considered a crime is because it's waged by people in authority. For those of you who don't know, authority is simply the legitimate use of force. How legitimacy is determined is very important and nebulous.

The situation in Ireland is/was far different from the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Grey_Fox]

The situation in Ireland is/was far different from the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

How so? Occupying force being fought by a guerrilla force that also had a penchant for shooting unarmed civilians in both cases. As far as I can see the only difference is what happens after they are captured.

[English assassin]

There is a difference between legal and illegal combatants. The former is covered and the latter is not. Once their legitimacy is verified then the conventions can be applied. If they are illegal combatants, then they are just criminals

Exactly. And what do we do with criminals?

My Lord, the prosecution rests.

The only reason war isn't considered a crime is because it's waged by people in authority.

Yes

For those of you who don't know, authority is simply the legitimate lawful use of force. How legitimacy legality is determined is very important and nebulous.

Mildly fixed. Its not nebulous at all. The law of war is long established, and there are good legal careers to be had in the armed forces.

[Rodion Romanovich]

This Fox news article sounds quite a lot like the type of information nazi Germany leaked about their "peaceful camps for dangerous criminals and terrorists" That people can be gullible enough for such propaganda to work over and over again in history...

[Tribesman]

Most if not all people there can be considered guilty.

How come most people there are eventually released without charge then ?

You don't capture someone shooting and launching RPGs at you and say: "Wait! He needs a fair trial!"

Ah the old fallacy that people in Gitmo were captured under arms fighting in Afghanistan .

Naive.

are you describing your own views very accurately?

When we caught people shooting and launching RPGs at British troops in Northern ireland a fair trial is EXACTLY what we gave them*

Yep , but don't forget that when the Gitmo approach was used it turned out to be a complete disaster .

[Watchman]

Sure, if they applied. I can't go shoot up a Russian military base and expect them.

Of course not. Russia runs under "sovereign justice" these days, after all.

[Zaknafien]

I think its disgusting that fake-news outlets like Fox are putting out stories like this to desensitize the whole torture and illegal imprisonment issue at gitmo. The propaganda machine is in full spin here and most Americans eat it up and laugh it off. Just look at the applause at the republican debate about torturing people... WTF?

by the way, hey PJ, its me Al from the Pond :)

[KukriKhan]

Re-opened with caveat: play the ball, not the man.

This is a heated discussion, but we've had those before and managed to remain civil to each other, dispite opposing views. Let's keep it that way.

Further contributions to this subject will be scrupulously parsed, so I strongly urge all to review their input before clicking "submit".

I apologize for the interruption. Kindly carry on.

[Lemur]

The chief military investigator of Abu Ghraib doesn't much like it. I note that none of the torture proponents have commented on the many generals' essays I've reprinted back here, with the exception of Xiahou approving of the letter from Gen. Petraeus.

Regarding "It's Our Cage, Too; Torture Betrays Us and Breeds New Enemies," the commendable May 17 op-ed by retired Marine Corps Gens. Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar:

As the investigator of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib prison, I confronted the outcome of current interrogation policies. We undermine the values that built this country and the credibility of our armed forces when we stoop to the level of some of our enemies. The awful events at Abu Ghraib and their far-reaching consequences could have been prevented if we had adhered to the Geneva Conventions.

The policies that were implemented for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and then revoked found their way into headquarters in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the staffs were contemplating draft policies. When no official direction was given, the interrogators referred to their experience in other situations, such as Guantanamo, or to the drafts they had seen. They acknowledged that they understood the Geneva Conventions and their Army training on this matter, but the pressure to uncover intelligence led them to the "new procedures."

I support the conclusion of Gens. Krulak and Hoar: "The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality."

Captured U.S. service members will face increased risk if torture becomes a tool of our interrogators. Our research showed that torture may produce an answer but that the credibility of the answer will always be in doubt. When our service members become captives, we could pay a high price for questionable intelligence that we extracted through torture.

PAUL J. KERN

The writer, a retired U.S. Army general, is a senior counselor with the Cohen Group.

[ShadeHonestus]

I note that none of the torture proponents have commented on the many generals' essays I've reprinted back here, with the exception of Xiahou approving of the letter from Gen. Petraeus.

I believe I covered most if not all of their content directly within the argument. I know I did so explicitly on a few occasions. What are you trying to insinuate? Or did you want me to shadow box with an editorial directly?

[Lemur]

Lower thy hackles, man. Yes, you have addressed many of their points, but I find it odd that so many generals and ex-generals are opposed to the use of torture. If it were as effective a battlefield tool as you and others suppose, they would be all for it. The messenger is of some importance, especially when there are so many of them, and they're men who have served in the highest ranks of the military.

[Soulforged]

Lower thy hackles, man. Yes, you have addressed many of their points, but I find it odd that so many generals and ex-generals are opposed to the use of torture. If it were as effective a battlefield tool as you and others suppose, they would be all for it. The messenger is of some importance, especially when there are so many of them, and they're men who have served in the highest ranks of the military.

I think that they oppose it out of shame. They saw those man stripped from their dignity in the past, and probably they suffered it too (who knows...) and thus they're not willing to let it happen again.

EDIT: Really now, it's so strange that a man can feel compasion even for his enemies? Why reduce this subject to something low as technique or legal institutions?

[ShadeHonestus]

Yes, you have addressed many of their points,

Well thank you for acknowledging it.

but I find it odd that so many generals and ex-generals are opposed to the use of torture.

I don't find it particularly odd at all. They are in a unique position after all. They look to maintain battlefield superiority which includes troop morale. A wholesale endorsement of torture would lower morale. However very few choose to make the distinction, like that found in the U.S. Army, that although removing torture from their domain in new directives (revising those in place sine 1992) does nothing but remove it from their hands. They still endorse by action the interrogations of the CIA and in fact aid and empower them in doing so. Where is the directive or policy change to change this? It isn't existent.

If it were as effective a battlefield tool as you and others suppose, they would be all for it. The messenger is of some importance, especially when there are so many of them, and they're men who have served in the highest ranks of the military.

As stated the value of morale in deniability. They probably see this deniability in repairing the image of the service in which they were dedicated to. What was your line about Tenet? A lot to make up for slam dunk? There is a lot of ground to be made up for Abu Gharib.

-edit-

When they recovered the body of Joseph Anzack in Iraq yesterday it showed signs of torture .
Is anyone going to speak up in support of his torture ?
After all he might have had some information that those who captured him thought would be valuable . It might have saved some of their friends of families lives .
Any takers ?
Or is torture clearly unjustifiable .

Nothing new from these people now is it? Do they have any type of definitions of what they do or how they do it? Oh wait, I know, they just need to ratify a treaty and they would be up to speed on what's correct, correct? I mean you do know the processes for different nations ratifying treaties do you not?

"When the Senate ratified the treaty, it defined such treatment as violations of the Fifth, Eighth and 14th Amendments. Because of that provision the Justice Department decided that the convention applies only to actions under U.S. jurisdiction, not treatment with respect to aliens overseas."

Who else ratified this, did the UK? What were the UK's ratification provisions? What middle eastern countries ratified it? Iran, Egypt, Iraq under Saddam? Didn't the supposed endorsement of the treaty in total without provision lead to such things as Sweden being held responsible for the torture of an individual they extradited to Egypt? An individual who was a member of Islamic Jihad? This treaty while well meaning on its face is rather like a dog that doesn't hunt, but rather chooses to sniff butts all day. Throw me a factual bone here. In fact this looks a lot like a resolution partly authored in committe by afghanistan years ago.

[Tribesman]

When they recovered the body of Joseph Anzack in Iraq yesterday it showed signs of torture .
Is anyone going to speak up in support of his torture ?
After all he might have had some information that those who captured him thought would be valuable . It might have saved some of their friends of families lives .
Any takers ?
Or is torture clearly unjustifiable .