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

[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.

[Samurai Waki]

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.

[Tribesman]

Nice article Lemur

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 .

[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?

[LittleGrizzly]

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...

[PanzerJaeger]

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

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.

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

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

[Spartan198]

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[Tribesman]

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 .

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

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 .

Quite the contrary, sir.

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

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

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 .

[Lemur]

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."

[Samurai Waki]

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

[Fragony]

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

[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...

[Lemur]

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?

[Fragony]

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?

[Whacker]

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.

[drone]

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!

[HoreTore]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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?

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.

[Tribesman]

No it doesn't sound appealing Panzer , to illustrate why it isn't appealing why not simply ask Banquo how many times he was pulled by the British as a "terrorist" even though he was in the British army .

[PanzerJaeger]

No it doesn't sound appealing Panzer , to illustrate why it isn't appealing why not simply ask Banquo how many times he was pulled by the British as a "terrorist" even though he was in the British army .

Well we aren't on speaking terms, but I get your point. Let me clarify.

Summary executions of known terrorists sounds appealing to me.

[HoreTore]

Summary executions of known terrorists sounds appealing to me.

You do know the reason why we invented systems like courts and such, right?

[FactionHeir]

How do you classify them as known?

[Tribesman]

How do you classify them as known?
Today 23:12

Well thats obvious , you torture someone else to get them to confirm that you are going to murder the right people .
So lets take an example , that peanutoil salesman they kidnapped in gambia and kept in Gitmo for years , they knew he was a terrorist because someone said he was a terrorist , when caught he had electronic devices that definately showed he was intent on being a terrorist .
Without a doubt he should have been summarily executed as a terrorist on the world battlefield , it would have saved the embarrasment of having the media find out that america is doing nasty stuff .
Especially when it turned out the accusation was complete bollox and the electronic device turned out to be a mobile phone charger .
Its much better to just murder people than to look like a bunch of idiots .

[Kagemusha]

Well thats obvious , you torture someone else to get them to confirm that you are going to murder the right people .
So lets take an example , that peanutoil salesman they kidnapped in gambia and kept in Gitmo for years , they knew he was a terrorist because someone said he was a terrorist , when caught he had electronic devices that definately showed he was intent on being a terrorist .
Without a doubt he should have been summarily executed as a terrorist on the world battlefield , it would have saved the embarrasment of having the media find out that america is doing nasty stuff .
Especially when it turned out the accusation was complete bollox and the electronic device turned out to be a mobile phone charger .
Its much better to just murder people than to look like a bunch of idiots .

Amen.

[Devastatin Dave]

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

I'll sober up when you stop trying to release terrorists that will kill us.

[Lemur]

Come on, Dave, you can do better. That line of rhetoric was getting tired in '04, and now it's four years on. Stop skipping like a broken record and find a new kind of fear to monger.

[Tribesman]

Stop skipping like a broken record and find a new kind of fear to monger.

Don't suggest that Lemur , if he cannot worry about jihadis then he will only go back to looking for reds under his bed , unless of course he goes on to atheist abortion loving single mothers on welfare in errrr New Orleans actually make that european atheist surrender monkey abortionist appeasers with lots of chldren on welfare in New Orleans campaigning for socialised medical care and against the fiasco in Iraq.
Face it , if it wasn't for Al-qaida dave would just have to invent something else to rail against .

[Adrian II]

Come on, Dave, you can do better. That line of rhetoric was getting tired in '04, and now it's four years on. Stop skipping like a broken record and find a new kind of fear to monger.

Who do you think you're fooling, Lemur? You personally released two terrorists on your own profile page and one of them tried to kill me. Fortunately, my man Pizza is on to you.