Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 71
  1.    #1  
    I confess to some personal discomfort regarding this topic.

    Despite Toby's certainty of BARYE's leftiness, I was not sure how I felt about interogation by torture.

    Though squeamish regarding the intentional torture of another, I confess to having been tempted by the lurid comfort of "certain" answers, to imperative questions.

    (see Goya, for those interested)

    The more I've learned, read, and thought about this stuff -- as well as listening to people who know more than me, I've become increasingly persuaded that torture simply gives interogators the answers that they are looking for -- not the truth.

    I say that after hearing from brave tough men, like John McCain.

    And from talking to people like former intelligence analysts Daniel Ellsberg and Ray McGovern.

    (see --this is 10 minutes of raw unedited video -- there are some interesting comments by Ellsberg about the beginnings of Viet Nam, toward the end).

    Or reading about how successfully american interogators were in getting information from Nazis during WW2.

    What does everyone else think ??

    What does torture tell us -- about ourselves, and the answers that we seek ... ??

    Fort Hunt's Quiet Men Break Silence on WWII
    Interrogators Fought 'Battle of Wits'

    By Petula Dvorak
    Washington Post, Saturday, October 6, 2007; A01

    For six decades, they held their silence.

    The group of World War II veterans kept a military code and the decorum of their generation, telling virtually no one of their top-secret work interrogating Nazi prisoners of war at Fort Hunt.

    When about two dozen veterans got together yesterday for the first time since the 1940s, many of the proud men lamented the chasm between the way they conducted interrogations during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects...

    They took prisoners out for steak dinners to soften them up. They played games with them

    "We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist...

    Blunt criticism of modern enemy interrogations was a common refrain at the ceremonies ...

    Several of the veterans, all men in their 80s and 90s, denounced the controversial techniques. And when the time came for them to accept honors from the Army's Freedom Team Salute, one veteran refused, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq and procedures that have been used at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

    "I feel like the military is using us to say, 'We did spooky stuff then, so it's okay to do it now,' " said Arno Mayer, 81, a professor of European history at Princeton University.

    When Peter Weiss, 82, went up to receive his award, he commandeered the microphone and gave his piece.

    "I am deeply honored to be here, but I want to make it clear that my presence here is not in support of the current war," said Weiss, chairman of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy and a human rights

    The veterans of P.O. Box 1142, a top-secret installation in Fairfax County that went only by its postal code name, were brought back to Fort Hunt by park rangers who are piecing together a portrait of what happened there during the war.

    Nearly 4,000 prisoners of war, most of them German scientists and submariners, were brought in for questioning for days, even weeks...

    "We did it with a certain amount of respect and justice," said John Gunther Dean, 81, who became a career Foreign Service officer and ambassador to
    Denmark.

    The interrogators had standards that remain a source of pride and honor.

    "During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone," said George Frenkel, 87, of Kensington. "We extracted information in a battle of the wits. ...
    Last edited by BARYE; 10/09/2007 at 02:48 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  2. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #2  
    Well, the article ASSumes a lot. Those mentioned in the article do not know what methods are being used today more than we do.

    But I digress...

    A thin line separates what constitutes torture and what constitutes techniques of interrogation. I agree with your sentiment that torture is probably not all that effective.

    So, the question becomes, what is torture? I would say you will get 6 or 7 different answers from any group of 10 people.

    I mean, being forced to listen to a Kevin Federline album constitutes torture in my book.
  3.    #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Well, the article ASSumes a lot. Those mentioned in the article do not know what methods are being used today more than we do.

    But I digress...

    A thin line separates what constitutes torture and what constitutes techniques of interrogation. I agree with your sentiment that torture is probably not all that effective.

    So, the question becomes, what is torture? I would say you will get 6 or 7 different answers from any group of 10 people.

    I mean, being forced to listen to a Kevin Federline album constitutes torture in my book.
    aside from K-Fed -- what is beyond the line --- what is unacceptable for you ??

    and will it yield truth, or what you want to hear ??
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  4. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    aside from K-Fed -- what is beyond the line --- what is unacceptable for you ??

    and will it yield truth, or what you want to hear ??
    A complex question....and no easy answers.....

    Right off the bat, I would say very broadly, that any technique that causes physical pain constitutes torture.

    Physical or mental discomfort does not constitute torture IMO, but therein lies the discussion of that where the line between discomfort and torture is drawn.

    Perhaps some specific examples are in order, then we can comment on them.
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    A complex question....and no easy answers.....

    Right off the bat, I would say very broadly, that any technique that causes physical pain constitutes torture.

    Physical or mental discomfort does not constitute torture IMO, but therein lies the discussion of that where the line between discomfort and torture is drawn.

    Perhaps some specific examples are in order, then we can comment on them.
    Well here are the techniques authorized by Bush Co:

    1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

    2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

    3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

    4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

    5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

    6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

    But these old vets from WWII seemed to have added clarity and wisdom to a topic that many like to cloud and make more complicated than it is - particularily those on the right. The answer to whether we torture or not is: we do not. Period. Torture is anything that is considerd “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment of a POW.

    I think the WWII vets that spoke out against this war continue to show wisdom beyond their years in their approach to this whole matter. They garnered intelligence from Nazis by using their wits - what else can be said? In the face of the worst evil this planet ever witnessed (systematic murder of 6MM jews) coupled with a brutal Japanese Army that tortured and killed thousands these fine gentlemen managed to interrogate using their wits and in doing so maintained a certain nobility and dignity that our evil enemies such as the Gestapo, did not. Can the same be said of Bush Co.?
    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/09/2007 at 02:17 AM.
  6.    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    A complex question....and no easy answers.....

    Right off the bat, I would say very broadly, that any technique that causes physical pain constitutes torture.

    Physical or mental discomfort does not constitute torture IMO, but therein lies the discussion of that where the line between discomfort and torture is drawn.

    Perhaps some specific examples are in order, then we can comment on them.

    What is torture ??

    well for me even being denied my daily stipend of Foie gras constitutes a form of torture -- (but I'm special that way...)

    Somewhat more seriously, from my pov, even non-consensual physical contact can be abusive -- a teacher or parent hitting a child can be a form of torture to me.

    Again -- where do you draw the line -- does making someone fear that they are drowning, that they can't breath, is that a form of torture ?? Does that go too far ??

    From a practical perspective -- everything I've heard from people who've been on the ground and have had these tasks -- or when I've talked to former CIA and FBI who were in the chain as customers of the work product of these "interviews" -- I 've never heard any of them say that torture yielded better, more reliable results, than just talking.

    The WW2 veterans who interogated captured Nazis said that they got the truth by being more clever and smarter -- not by being more brutal.

    Though I've never really watched 24, from what I've heard they routinely use Torture successfully -- always getting critical information and always saving the day.

    Perhaps its coincidental -- but I'm not surprised that the show's producers and writers are righties. The temptation to see violence as a solution to every problem reveals ignorance -- and is a characteristic of a bully. Initiating a war with Iraq, or wanting to bomb Iran, are the outgrowth of similar unsophistication.

    This mindset lacks the inteligence to either think ahead to foresee the potential effects of their actions, or the subtlety to emphathize with and see the world through, their enemy's eyes.

    Its a mindset of people who only understand hammers -- and who therefore see all problems as looking like nails.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  7. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Well here are the techniques authorized by Bush Co:
    We do not know what is authorized, and not authorized, by the administration. That is classified information.

    But I will entertain your guesses.....

    1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.
    Not torture IMO.

    2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.
    Depends on the slap. Some slaps do not cause pain, but do get the attention of the "slapee". So, a full-on slap is torture, but a "hey, look at me" slap is not torture.

    3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.
    If there is pain involved, then yes it is torture.

    4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.
    Not torture.

    5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.
    Possibly could be considered torture if pain is involved. Discomfort due to being excessively cold is not torture in and of itself.

    6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.
    Terrifying the prisoner is not torture IMO.

    But these old vets from WWII seemed to have added clarity and wisdom to a topic that many like to cloud and make more complicated than it is - particularily those on the right. The answer to whether we torture or not is: we do not. Period. Torture is anything that is considerd “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment of a POW.
    According to whom exactly? And what is considered cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment?

    I think the WWII vets that spoke out against this war continue to show wisdom beyond their years in their approach to this whole matter. They garnered intelligence from Nazis by using their wits - what else can be said?

    In the face of the worst evil this planet ever witnessed (systematic murder of 6MM jews) coupled with a brutal Japanese Army that tortured and killed thousands these fine gentlemen managed to interrogate using their wits and in doing so maintained a certain nobility and dignity that our evil enemies such as the Gestapo, did not. Can the same be said of Bush Co.?
    This is an apples to oranges situation and I will tell you why.

    By early 1943, many in the Nazi high command knew the war was lost. They knew that it was futile to keep whatever secrets were left of the Third Reich. The Nazi higher-ups were not stupid, not blinded by emotion, and were definately NOT willing to die for the cause.

    Contrast this with your average Middle Eastern jihadist who is not particularly rational and is quite ready to engage in an act of self immolation in order to "fight the infidels". Whatever he lacks in brains he makes up for it with vehemance.

    Now one can debate that information gained from torturous interrogation is, indeed, suspect. But there is little value in comparing what is to be done to an enemy that is quite unlike what was encountered in the past.

    Your Nazi commander got their reward in the form of a steak dinner and a chess game. Your jihadist believes that he will get 80,000 servants and 72 wives in the afterlife.

    Now you tell me who is the more difficult character to deal with? LOL!
  8. #8  
    Once again, gojeda hits the nail on the head.

    But BARYE, I have one question for you:

    Is is safe?

    ;-)
  9.    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    ...BARYE, I have one question for you:

    Is is safe?

    ;-)
    my dentist knows -- and when you give him the answer he's looking for, you'll know too...

    (until then, enjoy the ride ...)
    Last edited by BARYE; 10/10/2007 at 08:28 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    Once again, gojeda hits the nail on the head.
    Playing the part of Wormwood?

    Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, collective punishments are a war crime. Article 33 states: "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed," and "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."

    The men interviewed in this article know better than any of us how these practices today are being utilized. They didn't sit on the sidelines smugly treating a war with the same energy and interest as a college arch-rival football game.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Playing the part of Wormwood?

    Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, collective punishments are a war crime. Article 33 states: "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed," and "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."

    The men interviewed in this article know better than any of us how these practices today are being utilized. They didn't sit on the sidelines smugly treating a war with the same energy and interest as a college arch-rival football game.
    Um, If you want to promote your literary prowess, stick to the Naria stories.

    Geneva convention... I wonder where cutting off the heads of live people, videotaping and broadcating to the world fits in there. Terrorists don't get Geneva convention.

    One man's interrogation is another man's torture. What I find hilarious is that torture has been related to not "offending" people.

    I think Pershing know a had it right in the Phillipines:

    "Let's go back to the Philippines in 1911. There was an outbreak of terrorism among a violent group of breakaway Islams. General Black Jack Pershing of WWI fame was in command. Pershing evolved a plan. Knowing that in their religion to ascend to Allah, the pig is not to be associated with in any way - not to be eaten, not to be touched, not to go near. Pershing did the following: When the next terrorist found guilty of murder was executed, this was the procedure. The terrorist dug his own grave, he was tied to a stake, and the bullets used in the execution were soaked in pig blood. When he died, his body was dropped into the hole and was covered with pig entrails. When word spread among the religious fanatics, terrorism came to an abrupt halt." --George Putnam"

    I say you take the Islamofascits, fake slaugher a pig in front of them, and then take the blood. Then say you will have an infidel woman smear it all over there body and then inject it into his viens, thus preventing him from seeing Allah. Bring in the fake imam, asking the guy save himself. I'm sure a couple would crack if ya did it in the right environment.

    That, or the fake Jake Bauer style harming of family members is always a good way.

    The real skill with interrogation is to know when the guy is being truthful and when he is not.
  12. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    The men interviewed in this article know better than any of us how these practices today are being utilized.
    Just because one was an interrogator 60 years ago does not mean he really knows what is going on today.

    Unless they are actually involved with interrogating combatants and their associates today in these far-flung locations, under this administration, under current parameters, I fail to see how they would have a sense of what is going on.

    I can understand your willingness to go along with what they have to say if for no other reason that they criticize the administration. But that still does not remove the fact that they are, ultimately, ASSuming a lot.
  13. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Playing the part of Wormwood?

    Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, collective punishments are a war crime. Article 33 states: "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed," and "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."

    The men interviewed in this article know better than any of us how these practices today are being utilized. They didn't sit on the sidelines smugly treating a war with the same energy and interest as a college arch-rival football game.
    Also, how about trying a bit of honest here - right Shortie?

    Why did you fail to mention that your citation, above, is the Geneva Convention Relative to Protection of *Civilian Persons* during a time of war?
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    We do not know what is authorized, and not authorized, by the administration. That is classified information.

    But I will entertain your guesses.....
    Lovely. Thank you for "entertaining" my guesses as though I am some dumb muse for your entertainment.

    Depends on the slap. Some slaps do not cause pain, but do get the attention of the "slapee". So, a full-on slap is torture, but a "hey, look at me" slap is not torture.
    If there is pain involved, then yes it is torture.
    Pain is the operative word here.

    According to whom exactly? And what is considered cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment?
    According to the UN and according to the McCain bill that passed the Senate 90-9 back in 2006.

    in accordance with Article l of the United Nations Declaration and Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,

    [T]he term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted upon a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official [e.g., governmental, religious, political, organizational] capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to lawful sanctions [in accordance with both domestic and international law];


    This is an apples to oranges situation and I will tell you why.

    By early 1943, many in the Nazi high command knew the war was lost. They knew that it was futile to keep whatever secrets were left of the Third Reich. The Nazi higher-ups were not stupid, not blinded by emotion, and were definately NOT willing to die for the cause.

    Contrast this with your average Middle Eastern jihadist who is not particularly rational and is quite ready to engage in an act of self immolation in order to "fight the infidels". Whatever he lacks in brains he makes up for it with vehemance.

    Now one can debate that information gained from torturous interrogation is, indeed, suspect. But there is little value in comparing what is to be done to an enemy that is quite unlike what was encountered in the past.

    Your Nazi commander got their reward in the form of a steak dinner and a chess game. Your jihadist believes that he will get 80,000 servants and 72 wives in the afterlife.

    Now you tell me who is the more difficult character to deal with? LOL!
    Well you're a character, that is for sure. But you've missed the point or have intentionally steered the topic in a more favorable direction (again). My point was that the American's saw many attrocities being committed by the Nazis and the Japanese. BTW - the Japanese thought nothing of lopping off heads in the WWII and both Nazis and Japs killed scores of woman and children. They may not have wore head wraps and screamed "praise be to Allah" but they were vicous all the same. So in the face of all of these horribles attrocites, torture, and outright did we begin a policy of "tooth for a tooth"? No we did not.

    So your line of thinking that just because an islamofacist is eager to receive his virgins that we need to perform such extreme types of torture just doesn't fly. We don't do it because we shouldn't do it. We didn't need to do it back in WWII when it may have been even more morally justified to do so. And we certainly should not begin to torture now. John McCain, Colin Powell, and droves of military leaders concur that we should not be torturing.
  15. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    [T]he term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted upon a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official [e.g., governmental, religious, political, organizational] capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to lawful sanctions [in accordance with both domestic and international law];[/i]
    That is nice, but that still really doesn't qualify what is considered painful treatment, now does it?

    Well you're a character, that is for sure. But you've missed the point or have intentionally steered the topic in a more favorable direction (again).
    Yes, we are all quite aware of your hackneyed excuse when your comparison has been demonstrated to border on the ridiculous.

    My point was that the American's saw many attrocities being committed by the Nazis and the Japanese. BTW - the Japanese thought nothing of lopping off heads in the WWII and both Nazis and Japs killed scores of woman and children.
    But none of this really has to do with the jihadists' inclination to die for the cause, now does it?

    They may not have wore head wraps and screamed "praise be to Allah" but they were vicous all the same. So in the face of all of these horribles attrocites, torture, and outright did we begin a policy of "tooth for a tooth"? No we did not.
    The question here is not viciousness. The question is how the notion of "dying for the cause" presents a new set of problems that interrogators have to deal with.

    So again, we go back to my point before. Your average Nazi was unwilling to die for the cause. The jihadist is quite willing to die for the cause. That, in-an-of-itself, presents a wholly different situation to what was experienced some six decades ago.

    So your line of thinking that just because an islamofacist is eager to receive his virgins that we need to perform such extreme types of torture just doesn't fly.
    I never said such a thing. I merely pointed, and have since demonstrated, that the comparison between the Nazi and the jihadist is, at best, quite suspect.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    That is nice, but that still really doesn't qualify what is considered painful treatment, now does it?
    Perhaps you should go to the UN and tell them how to define it then. Strange how the color "grey" suits you just well when you feel the need to ridicule an opinion that doesn't fit your agenda.

    Yes, we are all quite aware of your hackneyed excuse when your comparison has been demonstrated to border on the ridiculous.
    You're such a pompous a$$. What is even funnier is that you are claiming the "average Nazi" didn't want to die for their cause. Really? They may not have wanted to die but I hardly think the "extreme Nazi" stood there forcing the "average nazi" to die to the tune of 23+ million. That's right - 23+ million German soldiers died in WWII. That seems to be a pretty big commitment to perpetrating genocide and world domination as the "aryan race".

    But none of this really has to do with the jihadists' inclination to die for the cause, now does it?
    Other than the religous aspects of this, I'd say the Nazi's are accepted by most rationale people (not ones going to great lengths to insult someone of a different political persuassion) as one of history's most extreme groups.

    The question here is not viciousness. The question is how the notion of "dying for the cause" presents a new set of problems that interrogators have to deal with.
    No neo. The question is whether the US should torture whether the POW is willing to die or not for their cause. I think McCain, Powell, the WWII interrogators, etc. are correct to maintain that the US DOES NOT TORTURE. It is really quite black and white but you insist on injecting grey (again, because it suits you this time around) by claiming that because they are religious extremist we need to rethink the issue of interrogation and push the limits of what is considered torture by most advanced countries.

    So again, we go back to my point before. Your average Nazi was unwilling to die for the cause. The jihadist is quite willing to die for the cause. That, in-an-of-itself, presents a wholly different situation to what was experienced some six decades ago.
    Your line of thinking here breaks down simply because it is clear the rest of the world still sees torture as torture. They don't accept the Bushies argument that this "new enemy" should be treated outside the realm of the Geneva convention. So the problem young neo is not only that they are tougher to extract information from, but from a global perspective we are no longer considered the "moral leader" we once were in the world.

    I never said such a thing. I merely pointed, and have since demonstrated, that the comparison between the Nazi and the jihadist is, at best, quite suspect.
    I've explained myself above. You can either agree that torture is not something the US should EVER DO, or not. I suspect you think its OK. I disagree. And the whole point of my WWII example is quite appropriate since we faced evil then, just as we do now, and despite that we stood above it all and still did not torture. There are many who looked upon America as the great savior back then for freeing them from occupation but they also saw our civility as a symbol of democracy and embraced us as not only the world's new super power, but one of the most respected countries in the world. That was then, this is now.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/11/2007 at 07:17 AM.
  17. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Perhaps you should go to the UN and tell them how to define it then. Strange how the color "grey" suits you just well when you feel the need to ridicule an opinion that doesn't fit your agenda.
    The UN can't even run a roadblock on their own without screwing that up, you expect them to put forth concise and decisive language on any issue?

    You're such a pompous a$$.
    More name-calling <yawn>

    What is even funnier is that you are claiming the "average Nazi" didn't want to die for their cause. Really? They may not have wanted to die but I hardly think the "extreme Nazi" stood there forcing the "average nazi" to die to the tune of 23+ million. That's right - 23+ million German soldiers died in WWII. That seems to be a pretty big commitment to perpetrating genocide and world domination as the "aryan race".
    As usual, your history is the stuff of fantasy.

    German military deaths in World War II vary greatly depending on who you talk to, however, none of the figures even remotely approach your 23 million tally.

    Try between 3.5 to 8 million, with most figures closer to the 3 million figure.

    That being said, I don't think I've ever studied a modern soldier, from any army, with the exception of the kamikazes, that "wanted to die".

    I think you are confused with the purpose of "wanting to kill the enemy" with "wanting to kill oneself in order to kill the enemy". Two entirely different philosophies that drive a soldier to do battle.

    Other than the religous aspects of this, I'd say the Nazi's are accepted by most rationale people (not ones going to great lengths to insult someone of a different political persuassion) as one of history's most extreme groups.
    They were extreme for entirely different reasons than that of your average jihadist.

    No neo.
    Who is neo?

    The question is whether the US should torture whether the POW is willing to die or not for their cause.
    I don't think anyone has brought up that question. I think you are trying to run away from your spurious comparison.

    I think McCain, Powell, the WWII interrogators, etc. are correct to maintain that the US DOES NOT TORTURE.
    I would agree with them.

    It is really quite black and white but you insist on injecting grey (again, because it suits you this time around) by claiming that because they are religious extremist we need to rethink the issue of interrogation and push the limits of what is considered torture by most advanced countries.
    Nope.....

    I merely said that the Nazi and jihadist are two completely different "animals" and that the jihadist presents a new set of problems for interrogators because of what they believe in.

    As far as pushing the limits the limits on torture, the obvious answer here is that the "limits" have not been particularly defined in the first place outside of ambiguous language laid out in various documents.

    There are a lot of acts in that "gray area" that one person might consider torture that the next person may not. The trick of the matter here is to remove the disambiguation and define the parameters more precisely.

    That simply has not happened yet.

    Your line of thinking here breaks down simply because it is clear the rest of the world still sees torture as torture.
    Well, torture is torture.....but the question is "what" is torture.

    They don't accept the Bushies argument that this "new enemy" should be treated outside the realm of the Geneva convention.
    And many do not accept their arguement that the "new enemy" is specifically entitled to Geneva Convention provisions simply because they do not reach the criteria needed to qualify for those protections - even though there is no proof that the administration is treating them any differently than regular POWs.

    So the problem young neo is not only that they are tougher to extract information from, but from a global perspective we are no longer considered the "moral leader" we once were in the world.
    Considering a good part of the world is run by those with little or no morals, I would take the remark as a compliment.

    "They", whether it be the "Bushies", the French, the Russians, the British, the Chinese, or whoever - will do whatever they think they need to do in order to get the information they need.

    I've explained myself above. You can either agree that torture is not something the US should EVER DO, or not. I suspect you think its OK.
    I think torture is something the US should never engage in.

    I disagree. And the whole point of my WWII example is quite appropriate since we faced evil and despite that we stood above it all and still did not torture.
    And the question is, why do you think we are not "above it all" now? Because Amnesty International says so?

    I, for one, feel this country has acted with great restraint in the wake of 9/11.

    There are many who looked upon America as the great savior back then for freeing them from occupation but saw our civilility and embraced as not only the world's new super power, but one of the most respected countries in the world. That was then, this is now.
    The "world" "liked us" then because we saved their collective hides, but the world has never really "liked" us because we stand for things that the many in the world, if not the majority, does not particularly care for.

    We are the proverbial bull in the china shop and will always be viewed as such.
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Also, how about trying a bit of honest here - right Shortie?

    Why did you fail to mention that your citation, above, is the Geneva Convention Relative to Protection of *Civilian Persons* during a time of war?
    Please identify each of those who have been detained, tortured, threatened with violence, raped, murdered, had sh*t forcefed, had the Qoran shredded in front of them then flushed down a toilet, by the uniform they wear and site the open-review process used to identify the army or militia each are associated with. Thanks!

    Prior to Bush's convenient overhaul of Geneva Conventions, those who are in Gitmo, Iraq's military prisons, and each of the secret CIA prisons, having been illegally removed, depriving them of Habeas Corpus, would have fallen under the 4th Geneva Convention as previously described, without substantial physical evidence to prove otherwise.

    Solely under Bush, the terms Lawful Combatant and Unlawful Combatant thus divide people in a war zone into two classes. Those in armies and militias (lawful combatants), and those who are not. Those in armies and militias and the like have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture and those not in armies and militias do not have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture.

    The critical distinction is that a "lawful combatant" cannot be held personally responsible for acts prosecuting that combat, unless they commit war crimes or crimes against humanity. And if captured, they have to be treated as prisoners of war - basically they can be detained, but must be provided for, treated with respect.

    If there is any doubt about whether an alleged combatant is a "lawful combatant" then they must be held as a Prisoner of War until their status has been determined by "a competent tribunal". If that tribunal rules that the combatant is an "unlawful combatant" then their status changes to that of a civilian which may give them some rights under Fourth Geneva Convention.
  19. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Please identify each of those who have been detained, tortured, threatened with violence, raped, murdered, had sh*t forcefed, had the Qoran shredded in front of them then flushed down a toilet, by the uniform they wear and site the open-review process used to identify the army or militia each are associated with. Thanks!
    You seem to have this mysterious body of evidence no one else has. Perhaps you should be the one "illuminating" us instead?

    Prior to Bush's convenient overhaul of Geneva Conventions, those who are in Gitmo, Iraq's military prisons, and each of the secret CIA prisons, having been illegally removed, depriving them of Habeas Corpus, would have fallen under the 4th Geneva Convention as previously described, without substantial physical evidence to prove otherwise.
    Military prisons and secret prisons are not violations of the Convention.

    Define "illegally removed".

    And lastly, they are called "enemy combatants", not civilians.

    Solely under Bush, the terms Lawful Combatant and Unlawful Combatant thus divide people in a war zone into two classes. Those in armies and militias (lawful combatants), and those who are not. Those in armies and militias and the like have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture and those not in armies and militias do not have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture.
    Actually, the proper terminology here is "priviledged combatant".

    The synopsis is mostly correct, except you left out an important detail in that a priviledged combatant is one who engages in hostilities within Law of Armed Conflict.

    Militias are not bound by any law of war. As a matter of fact, militias are not really bound by anything.

    The critical distinction is that a "lawful combatant" cannot be held personally responsible for acts prosecuting that combat, unless they commit war crimes or crimes against humanity.
    Citation please.

    And if captured, they have to be treated as prisoners of war - basically they can be detained, but must be provided for, treated with respect.
    Indeed - all lawful combantants are entitled to be treated in accordance with the GC.

    If there is any doubt about whether an alleged combatant is a "lawful combatant" then they must be held as a Prisoner of War until their status has been determined by "a competent tribunal".


    Such as a military tribunal....

    If that tribunal rules that the combatant is an "unlawful combatant" then their status changes to that of a civilian which may give them some rights under Fourth Geneva Convention.
    Indeed.
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    You seem to have this mysterious body of evidence no one else has. Perhaps you should be the one "illuminating" us instead?
    Your efforts brought us here. You first.

    Military prisons and secret prisons are not violations of the Convention.
    This was never my statement or intent. Secret prisons will be found to be crimes against humanity, however, within the next 10 years, IMO.

    Define "illegally removed".
    Define Habeas Corpus and you have your answer.

    And lastly, they are called "enemy combatants", not civilians.
    Civilian is still a classification, as previously posted. Until a competent tribunal rules on their status as 'privileged' or unprivileged' combatants, they are classified as prisoners of war. Also, as previously posted, their status may be graded down to civilian status which entitles them to 4th Geneva Convention treatment, which is where you began foaming at the the mouth at me.

    Militias are not bound by any law of war. As a matter of fact, militias are not really bound by anything.
    Your lack of study of the Geneva Conventions is duly noted.
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions