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

[Lemur]

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.

[LittleGrizzly]

EDIT:

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

[Xiahou]

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.

[LittleGrizzly]

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...

[Lemur]

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?

[Devastatin Dave]

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.

[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.

[Devastatin Dave]

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?

[Whacker]

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-------------

[Lemur]

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.

[Xiahou]

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.....

[Lemur]

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 ...

[Devastatin Dave]

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.

[Devastatin Dave]

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

[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.

[Geoffrey S]

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.

[Tribesman]

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

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 .

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 .

[Adrian II]

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.

[Fragony]

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

[Lemur]

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.

[ajaxfetish]

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

[Don Corleone]

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.

[drone]

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.

[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."