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

[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...

[Beirut]

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?

[Ice]

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

Betty Lou?



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

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

Aye, that's it. Well said!

[Lemur]

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.

[Spartan198]

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

Exactly how is that "comforting"?

[Lemur]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[Beirut]

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

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?

[HoreTore]

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.

[FactionHeir]

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?

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[Tribesman]

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

Dave is on the side of the lunatics .

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 .

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 .... .

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

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.

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

And to think, certain moderators feel I am disrespectful.

[HoreTore]

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.

[Ironside]

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.

Anyone wondering where you can find the mentality that led to S-21 needs only to see this thread.


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

[Whacker]

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.

[HoreTore]

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?

[Lemur]

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."

[FactionHeir]

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*"

[Lemur]

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.