[Derius_T]

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) - Female interrogators tried to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay by sexual touching, wearing a miniskirt and thong underwear and in one case smearing a Saudi man's face with fake menstrual blood, according to an insider's written account.

One female civilian contractor used a special outfit that included a miniskirt, thong underwear and a bra during late-night interrogations with prisoners, mostly Muslim men who consider it taboo to have close contact with women who aren't their wives.

Beginning in April 2003, `there hung a short skirt and thong underwear on the hook on the back of the door'' of one interrogation team's office, he writes. ``Later I learned that this outfit was used for interrogations by one of the female civilian contractors ... on a team which conducted interrogations in the middle of the night on Saudi men who were refusing to talk.''

Some Guantanamo prisoners who have been released say they were tormented by ``prostitutes.''

The female interrogator wanted to ``break him,'' Saar adds, describing how she removed her uniform top to expose a tight-fitting T-shirt and began taunting the detainee, touching her breasts, rubbing them against the prisoner's back and commenting on his apparent erection.

The detainee looked up and spat in her face, the manuscript recounts.

The interrogator left the room to ask a Muslim linguist how she could break the prisoner's reliance on God. The linguist told her to tell the detainee that she was menstruating, touch him, then make sure to turn off the water in his cell so he couldn't wash.

Strict interpretation of Islamic law forbids physical contact with women other than a man's wife or family, and with any menstruating women, who are considered unclean.

``The concept was to make the detainee feel that after talking to her he was unclean and was unable to go before his God in prayer and gain strength,'' says the draft, stamped ``Secret.''

The interrogator used ink from a red pen to fool the detainee, Saar writes.

``She then started to place her hands in her pants as she walked behind the detainee,'' he says. ``As she circled around him he could see that she was taking her hand out of her pants. When it became visible the detainee saw what appeared to be red blood on her hand. She said, 'Who sent you to Arizona?' He then glared at her with a piercing look of hatred.

``She then wiped the red ink on his face. He shouted at the top of his lungs, spat at her and lunged forward'' - so fiercely that he broke loose from one ankle shackle.

``He began to cry like a baby,'' the draft says, noting the interrogator left saying, ``Have a fun night in your cell without any water to clean yourself.''

Events Saar describes resemble two previous reports of abusive female interrogation tactics, although it wasn't possible to independently verify his account.

In November, in response to an AP request, the military described an April 2003 incident in which a female interrogator took off her uniform top, exposed her brown T-shirt, ran her fingers through a detainee's hair and sat on his lap. That session was immediately ended by a supervisor and that interrogator received a written reprimand and additional training, the military said.

In another incident, the military reported that in early 2003 a different female interrogator ``wiped dye from red magic marker on detainees' shirt after detainee spit (cq) on her,'' telling the detainee it was blood. She was verbally reprimanded, the military said.

Sexual tactics used by female interrogators have been criticized by the FBI, which complained in a letter obtained by AP last month that U.S. defense officials hadn't acted on complaints by FBI observers of ``highly aggressive'' interrogation techniques, including one in which a female interrogator grabbed a detainee's genitals.

About 20 percent of the guards at Guantanamo are women, said Lt. Col. James Marshall, a spokesman for U.S. Southern Command. He wouldn't say how many of the interrogators were female.

Marshall wouldn't address whether the U.S. military had a specific strategy to use women.

``U.S. forces treat all detainees and conduct all interrogations, wherever they may occur, humanely and consistent with U.S. legal obligations, and in particular with legal obligations prohibiting torture,'' Marshall said late Wednesday.

But some officials at the U.S. Southern Command have questioned the formation of an all-female team as one of Guantanamo's ``Immediate Reaction Force'' units that subdue troublesome male prisoners in their cells, according to a document classified as secret and obtained by AP.

In one incident, dated June 19, 2004, ``The detainee appears to be genuinely traumatized by a female escort securing the detainee's leg irons,'' according to the document, a U.S. Southern Command summary of videotapes shot when the teams were used.

The summary warned that anyone outside Department of Defense channels should be prepared to address allegations that women were used intentionally with Muslim men.

At Guantanamo, Saar said, ``Interrogators were given a lot of latitude under Miller,'' the commander who went from the prison in Cuba to overseeing prisons in Iraq, where the Abu Ghraib scandal shocked the world with pictures revealing sexual humiliation of naked prisoners.

Several female troops have been charged in the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Saar said he volunteered to go to Guantanamo because ``I really believed in the mission,'' but then he became disillusioned during his six months at the prison.

After leaving the Army with more than four years service, Saar worked as a contractor briefly for the FBI.

The Department of Defense has censored parts of his draft, mainly blacking out people's names, said Saar, who hired Washington attorney Mark S. Zaid to represent him. Saar needed permission to publish because he signed a disclosure statement before going to Guantanamo.

The book, which Saar titled ``Inside the Wire,'' is due out this year with Penguin Press.

Guantanamo has about 545 prisoners from some 40 countries, many held more than three years without charge or access to lawyers and many suspected of links to al-Qaida or Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime, which harbored the terrorist network.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Paisley Dodds is an Associated Press reporter based in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and has been covering the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since it opened in 2002.

On the Web:

http://www.defenselink.mil


Like I said over on TFL, people scream and cry about us "TORTURING" the
poor Iraqi Soldiers......explain how this is torture? If it is, can I be tortured
a little too? Now when I think of torture, I think of all the horrible things
THEY do to OUR PEOPLE! Beheading, cutting off body parts, ect. How can
people even put this in the same context!? So their being 'tortured' by some
pretty girls in bra's and g-strings......wow......most people have to PAY for
that.........

[Sparks]

That report's over a year old for a start. Even ignoring the reports of waterboarding and other practises that have come out since, and the reports from Abu Grahib which indicate how far interrogations have gone in other US facilities, you have to remember that what was described there would be only surreal to you - to someone from another culture, there would be a different experience.

For example, for an american to be stripped naked and thrown into a room with their parents and siblings, who are also naked would be somewhat embarressing - but in some cultures, it would be as distressing as noticing that it gets dark at night. The saying you're thinking of is "One man's meat is another man's poison".

[Luckyorwhat]

How the hell did 20 guys escape from their? They live in freaking boxes on a military base in Cuba? ***?

[jefnvk]

Again, I am going to say that most of the allegations of abuse need to stop. When prisoners die, or they are losing limbs or other parts, I will begin to be concerned.

These prisoners are going to go home in one piece. How are the Arab's prisoners going home (hint: HEADLESS).

[MrTuffPaws]

^^^^^^^

Of course, mental torture is not torture right? :rolleyes:

The reason this is torture to them is that Muslims and Arabs in general have grevious taboos against touching women other than than their wives. Remember, adultry for them is a crime punishable by death.

Consider yourself in a room, tied down to a chair and then having a nake male give you a lap dance while your family watches. Now take that and multiple it. Thats the shame we are talking about.

[spacemanspiff]

ooooooo, they are shamed! i'm like, crying rivers of tears!

[Sparks]

When prisoners die, or they are losing limbs or other parts, I will begin to be concerned.
There have been at least two deaths of detainees in US care where the cause of death was ruled as homicide by US army doctors, not in guantanamo, but in afghanistan. Abu Grahib has been all over every news channel. The Red Cross and agents of the FBI have both stated publicly that there is torture and abuse taking place in Guantanamo.

I think we're a ways past unsubstantiated allegations at this point.

[CannibalCrowley]

Again, I am going to say that most of the allegations of abuse need to stop. When prisoners die, or they are losing limbs or other parts, I will begin to be concerned.They have.

A quick search turns up this link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/30/iraq/main614905.shtml

Or are you only willing to pay attention if a wrongful death is proven to happen at Gitmo. Of course that would be easier if they'd release the identities of everyone there.

[iiibdsiil]

I think that in a situation where you are being completely forced, it wouldn't be quite as bad. Would your wife leave you if you went got raped by a guy when you were walking down the street? No. Would she leave you if you were willingly doing it? I hope so. (That is not anti-gay, that is anti-cheating).

As with anything you are forced into, it isn't the same thing as willingly doing it. So regardless of what my religion said, I would not feel like I did anything wrong if I was forced. Not having common sense to acknowledge that, well, that is the prisoners fault.

These tactics aren't exactly ethical, but we are still well under what they are doing to us over there. I think we should play "eye for an eye" with them.

[Sparks]

I think that in a situation where you are being completely forced, it wouldn't be quite as bad.
Every expert on rehabilitating torture victims would disagree with you. And I'm not sure how it makes it any less a violation of the Geneva Convention, or any less torture, if your family know it was torture and not you coming out of the closet about a heavy-duty S&M llifestyle.

[iiibdsiil]

All I was stating was I would be able to forgive myself and let my God find me clean by justifying that it was forced. So, it is stupid for the prisoner to have his water shut off and go crazy because he isn't cleansed, therefore he can't pray for strength.

But, in my religion, God doesn't care, but that's a different post.

[Sparks]

All I was stating was I would be able to forgive myself
But that's why it was so beside the point - the problem with such abuse is not the prisoner being able to forgive himself, but us being able to forgive the abuser.

[Flyboy]

Would you give up your country's military or nuclear secrets if somebody gave you a lap dance?

Didn't think so.

If the interrogators thought this would be a useful technique to break the will of prisoners, there's a reason. In some cases, it seems to have worked. Now, given that most of us wouldn't have been broken by such things, there must be something different between us and the prisoners.

In fact, there is. What we consider erotic--and in some cases, worth paying for--they consider sinful, and scandalous to the point of traumatic. We deliberately inflicted moral, mental, and emotional torment upon them in a form so traumatic (to them) as to cause their resistance to break, inducing them to sell out their countries.

Yes, there is such a thing as mental torture. It's entirely in the perception of the recipient. Just because you don't consider it that bad doesn't mean they don't. I could describe things that would make Art's grandmother turn beet-red here that would disgust you, and me, and most anybody else, but wouldn't cause you any physical harm. Are you volunteering for that treatment?

[Standing Wolf]

Torture isn't part of the American way. If we're not going to uphold American standards, why fight for them?

[Lone_Gunman]

ditto Standing Wolf.

Sounds like the interrogator was a whore.

Lets either kill the bastards, or not, but this kind of stuff is just not right.

[Steve in PA]

What Standing Wolf said.

We as American's hold ourselves to a higher standard than (for the most part) the rest of the planet. Doing something because a people/country does something, only lowers ourselves to their level.

[jsalcedo]

Sounds like a place I visited in Tiajuana.... :eek:

Seriously, it has been proven for years in college studies that the prisoners
are always abused in these unsupervised situations as a sociological rule.

Researchers took a group of American students in a graduate program all knew each other, some friends and split them in half.

Half were jailers and the rest prisoners. They used real cages and were given instructions to guard these prisoners for 10 days.

Very soon after the pseudo incarceration began the jailers began to miserably mistreat the other students, , torture, physical abuse, withholding of food and medicine, overall antisocial behavior for no apparent reason other than some animalistic groupthink mentality. .

The professor had to end the study early because things spiraled out of control very quickly.

I have a strong feeling this is what is happening to these detaineesin gitmo and Iraq

It seems without oversight even the most normal of people can turn into monsters.

[jefnvk]

I realize that there have been deaths. Those are the ones that need to be investigated. But when reports are coming in of women putting on a strip show as 'torture', or the prisoners were forced to stand in 'uncomfortable' positions, I think people are going too far.

[Luckyorwhat]

jsalcedo I saw that movie, iirc it was German.

As for the torture, it's pretty bad. When you resist interrogation, resistance to interrogation, R2I, they use R2I techniques on you. It's mostly American, and Brits come over to train on it. Of course if you are a pilot or SAS they give you a taste of what you may receive if captured, but R2I techniques use a lot of sexual stuff because it breaks guy's minds. SAS officers have opted to stop the training early, and they only have to make 24 hours. Even so each subject being mock R2I tortured is under constant professional psychological observation, they could break a man's mind permanently with only a few days.

For the physical aspects, you start beating them, strip them, chain them, toss them onto a wet concrete floor in a cold room, put a loud radio just out of reach that plays music 24/7, after a couple days a doctor may or may not look at their wounds, and may or may not treat them, back in the cell, bring a bunch of them out, tell two of them to have bum-sex, torture them mercilessly if they refuse, tell two others to have bum-sex, they do it, beat them a little, back into the cell naked on wet floor with music for a few days, and then start asking them questions. It should be emphasized that the female presence is crucial in breaking the psyche. Think Judge Judy, or Dr. Laura, it's just so, so irritating. Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh are worse for content, but they don't annoy as much. Maybe it's just me.

Anyway, how the hell did 20 people escape Gitmo?

P.S.
Some prisoners did die during 'questioning', lol they brought in the doctors to recuscitate them, then more questioning!

P.P.S.
If this is to be war, then all citizens really ought to know how ugly war is, before they commit others to do the dirty work for them.

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

In fact, there is. What we consider erotic--and in some cases, worth paying for--they consider sinful, and scandalous to the point of traumatic. We deliberately inflicted moral, mental, and emotional torment upon them in a form so traumatic (to them) as to cause their resistance to break, inducing them to sell out their countries.

Funny how those devout Muslims who carried out the 9/11 attacks managed to fly out to Vegas and buy themselves a weekend's worth of lap-dances and booze a week before the attacks.

Maybe they were training themselves in how to resist such torture in case they were captured by those infidel Americans.

[MrTuffPaws]

Standing Wolf

Amen.

[MrTuffPaws]

Funny how those devout Muslims who carried out the 9/11 attacks managed to fly out to Vegas and buy themselves a weekend's worth of lap-dances and booze a week before the attacks.

That was debunked. Do some research and you will find that it was not true.

[Bemidjiblade]

I have to take what seems to be the minority account here.
If we are truly fighting for the beliefs and ideals that ALL people are created equal and endowed by God with inalienable rights (not preaching, just quoting), if that's one of the founding principles of our nation, then we are betraying our beloved country when we dehumanize our enemies.

Does it happen? Of course it's going to happen.

But in America, if we are to remain the country I love, it must also follow as a natural consequence, that the torturers deserve to be punished as well.

If we do not hold ourself to our own principles, we have lost all moral ability to hold anyone else to any principles. The dignity of life must be held true for ALL people, or else, as Niesche said, "Once the reality of absolutes is denied, right and wrong become an exercise in force."

[Henry Bowman]

At the risk of adding gasoline to this flaming discussion, the most enlightening analysis I have seen of this issue was written by our own John Ross and can be found here (http://www.john-ross.net/islam.htm).

[Sparks]

the most enlightening analysis I have seen of this
You need to read more, methinks.

Did our actions at Abu Ghraib prison violate the Hague Accords or the Geneva Convention or whatever? Beats me.
If there's a question in your mind as to whether the Geneva Convention prohibits sodomising someone with a lightstick, there's something wrong with your mind, frankly.

[Firethorn]

Now that was an interesting article.

"Geneva Convention prohibits" I hear that alot. Now, I understand the reasons behind the rules of war, but part of the reason to have the conventions was to avoid a sort of tit for tat. Following the conventions doesn't seem to be preventing the terrorists from doing anything, so maybe it's time to try something else?

[Sparks]

Following the conventions doesn't seem to be preventing the terrorists from doing anything, so maybe it's time to try something else?

Firstly, it's very clearly stated in the Conventions that the other side not adhering to the Conventions does not grant licence to you to abandon them as well. That's the only part of the Conventions written to prevent "tit for tat" actions.

Secondly, if you're willing to start torturing people, including those who you didn't catch during a firefight but who were simply pointed at by someone you don't know who said they were dodgy, and you don't see anything wrong with torturing them, then how do you expect people to tell the difference between you and Hussein, other than the fact that fewer people died per month under him according to the statistics?

[Luckyorwhat]

Yea, what Sparks said, you have to grant the enemy the liberties whether they wear a uniform or not.

The kick-in-the-balls is that this stuff wasn't done to the few American prisoners. If you differentiate between the two US-Iraq actions, then in round 2 great care was taken to be proper - Lynch was being treated very well, iirc. Compare that to Iraqi prisoners, who were as likely as not to even be granted the privilege of having their bullets removed.

And just to clarify - The Abu Garib and Jitmo actions led to the violent re-action. It's not a co-incidence that those beheaded were dressed in orange jump-suits.

[Henry Bowman]

Firstly, it is my understanding that the Geneva Convention does not apply to the Gitmo detainees. (BTW, they are from Afganistan, not Iraq.) We, however, are subjecting ourselves to it because we do not stoop to their level as a matter of policy.

Secondly, anyone actually torturing has been dealt with severly. In fact, we have made a public show of severly punishing any even those who "humiliated" prisoners or terrorist detainees in an attempt to extract vital information. Would you have us just say, "Prettly please?" :barf:

[Sparks]

Firstly, it is my understanding that the Geneva Convention does not apply to the Gitmo detainees.
That's what the current US administration says. However, since it is the current US administration that would be guilty if their coverage under geneva wasn't challanged, I'll be taking their claim with a large pinch of salt. It is, after all, like asking the burglar to define what constitutes burglary...
There is a mechanism defined in the convention for settling this, by the way, but it requires the arbitration of a third independent party. The US, being one of the two parties in conflict, cannot make the determination.

(BTW, they are from Afganistan, not Iraq.)
Not all of them, from what little we know. Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa, Australia, the UK, the US...

We, however, are subjecting ourselves to it because we do not stoop to their level as a matter of policy.
:scrutiny:
There is evidence that strongly suggests that that is not the case though.

Secondly, anyone actually torturing has been dealt with severly. In fact, we have made a public show of severly punishing any even those who "humiliated" prisoners or terrorist detainees in an attempt to extract vital information.
So far we've only seen a handful of such cases. If they're the rule, excellent. If they're the exception though...
Well, lets wait and see before cheering, shall we?

Would you have us just say, "Prettly please?"
I'd rather see the detainees identified as being either military POWs or civilian suspects and the appropriate rights granted in either case, to be honest. It's more consistent that way.

[spacemanspiff]

Firstly, it's very clearly stated in the Conventions that the other side not adhering to the Conventions does not grant licence to you to abandon them as well. That's the only part of the Conventions written to prevent "tit for tat" actions
comparing apples and oranges here. gitmo 'detainees' are being questioned for information.
the hostages taken by 'insurgents' are not being questioned for information, they are tortured and killed simply because the 'insurgents', ahhh, forget it. cant express myself here the way i wish to.

but the point is, we take prisoners for a reason, to obtain information.
they take prisoners because they are sadistic.

[R.H. Lee]

Does the Geneva Convention prohibit beheadings, blowing up women and children or flying airplanes into buildings?

[Sparks]

but the point is, we take prisoners for a reason, to obtain information.
Quoting directly from the Geneva Convention:
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Does the Geneva Convention prohibit beheadings, blowing up women and children or flying airplanes into buildings?
Yes, no and no. The second is covered by the Hague Convention instead of Geneva, and the third isn't covered by anything other than civil and criminal law.

[Henry Bowman]

I'd rather see the detainees identified as being either military POWs or civilian suspects and the appropriate rights granted in either case, to be honest. It's more consistent that way. :confused: And this "consistency" will give of useful information, ...how???

I'm not in favor of torture. It sould be (and has been) punished. I simply do not believe that "humiliation" is torture. It's a nice bonus that these ... folks... are so easily humiliated without having to resort to any physical abuse.

[Chris Rhines]

So what we have here is American soldiers taking a page from the Chekist interrogators from The Gulag Archipelago. Wonderful. Just freakin' wonderful.

But hey, support the troops, right?

- Chris

[jefnvk]

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

So what if we were to subject them all to 'disadventageous' conditions, and the ones that talk get better conditions?

I'm not saying torture is right. What I am saying is that I cannot take any claims of torture seriously when it involves 'standing in uncomfortable positions' or strip shows. The ones that are are beating prisoners, killin ghtem, electrocuting them, they need to be the ones investigated.

[Luckyorwhat]

RileyMc: "Does the Geneva Convention prohibit beheadings, blowing up women and children or flying airplanes into buildings?"

That's a fair point. Ivevitably the conversation deteriorates after this paradox is presented.

First point, the method of death is less important. I guess you could measure it by Pain/Time, but that would make beheading look pretty good, and burning look pretty bad.

Second point, war sucks, women and children will die, and the percentage of casualties in any conflict will increasingly be composed of women and children, it broke the 50% barrier during WW2, and has shown no signs of slowing down. This is why some people are so stridently against war. I don't have a deep understanding of war, and I'm thankful for that.

Third point, the airplanes and buildings action is not that different from rowing an explosive-packed boat into the USS Cole, or even a kamikaze flying their plane into the USS Saratoga. Again, we see the huge percentage of civilian casualties. This is probably because of the very nature of the attacks and their targets, but you would see a similar percentage if examining the swaths cut by Serb and Croat forces through each others' territory. It seems, just an outsider opinion, it seems like us civilians are the stakes for which the game is played. In WW2 we produced the munitions, and each side strove to knock out the other's civilian manufacturing. Currently us western civilians can influence governments and make the money to support them, so the terrorists target us. The enemy civilians serve a different purpose, they replace the dense foilage of SE Asia as the medium for concealment from air-strikes. Just a guess, but that's why I imagine civilians are always the losers.

[Sparks]

So what if we were to subject them all to 'disadventageous' conditions, and the ones that talk get better conditions?

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever.
Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health.


I'm not saying torture is right. What I am saying is that I cannot take any claims of torture seriously when it involves 'standing in uncomfortable positions' or strip shows.
Stress positions are not just "uncomfortable". And while watching a pretty girl in a bikini isn't uncomfortable for you, there are many things which are similarly non-physical in nature but which would induce mental anguish for you that would count as torture.

[feedthehogs]

Those that don't think mental abuse or torture is as bad as physical torture need to go to a shelter for abused women and talk to them.

At least if they cut your head off, your dead.

The long term effects from mental torture can last a life time.
Its worse than being killed.

The US is no better than anyone else, although we would like to think we are because we hold ourselves in such high esteem.

Dismissing their religious belief because we cannot understand it does not make the effects of using it against them any less severe.

Why is it the majority of the world does not like us?

Because they see us not riding our high horse around.

[spacemanspiff]

you know what, this is just something we'll have to agree to disagree upon. i've watched the videos of Americans and others being beheaded. with dull cutting instruments no less.

thats what they do to all of US, they put it on display and the entire world outside of America still finds reasons to hate our country.

but when we make their soldiers look at scantily clad women or touch a woman, that makes us worse????

:scrutiny:

[Sparks]

thats what they do to all of US, they put it on display and the entire world outside of America still finds reasons to hate our country.
but when we make their soldiers look at scantily clad women or touch a woman, that makes us worse?
In the real world, two people can be guilty of two different crimes without either's actions being exonerated by those of the other.
There are also the points that Guantanamo was around and Iraq was invaded long before the kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq; and that US PoWs during the invasion were given far better treatment than detainees, as shown by Lynch's treatment.

[R.H. Lee]

and that US PoWs during the invasion were given far better treatment than detainees, as shown by Lynch's treatment. How do you figure? She was beaten, suffered multiple fractures, and was raped by her Iraqi captors.

[Sparks]

How do you figure? She was beaten, suffered multiple fractures, and was raped by her Iraqi captors.
Horse hockey. She was in a car crash and got the best treatment the Iraqi hospital had, including surgery to repair her leg fractures (two of the hospital staff donating blood for the surgery), and the iraqi medical staff risked their necks and were shot at by US forces when they tried returning her in a marked civilian ambulance two days before the US special forces stormed the hospital (which had no Iraqi soldiers in it at the time) with a full TV crew and a flag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/3028585.stm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32410

[Luckyorwhat]

Sparks, do you expect people to believe that? It's true, but still you expect people to believe it?

JK, sorta.

A case could be made that during the first US-Iraq conflict American POWS were beaten and coerced, a very strong case, a case with beaten soldiers making statements on video-tape... But a beating and co-ercion is what most detainees get before they arrive at the jail.

Seriously, someone ought to question why the American prisoners who were beheaded were wearing orange jump-suits and had bags over their heads. It is because the golden rule applies in POWs.

In Afghanistan people were willing to look the other way at prisoner mis-treatment, most people. Guantanamo Bay, almost as many people were willing to accept the situation - it was an extraordinary time, ad it was a confusing time. In Abu Garib there was no confusion, the mis-treatment of prisoners over the previous years had been clearly and correctly interpreted as precedence for the new status-quo. Tens of thousands of people partake in the new policy, and when a trial comes up a dozen are punished. A dozen guards punished, and a lesson learned - Don't take pictures! Rumsfield is supported by the President, and Gonzalez is promoted.

If you thought moslems were loath to be captured alive before...

The real crime is that this behavior boomerangs. Innocent soldiers that had nothing to do with prisoner abuse will be punished for their predecessor's actions. When they take prisoners they will abuse them further... Seems sort of like the eastern front in WW2.

[jefnvk]

I don't think those were her captors. IIRC, her captors had abandoned her there when they took off. Those were citizens.

[Sparks]

I don't think those were her captors. IIRC, her captors had abandoned her there when they took off. Those were citizens.
She was in their custody at the time. The fact that they were medical personel wasn't germane. Also, you'll note that the iraqis who captured Lynch brought her to a medical facility where her injuries were cared for, and that the later allegations of rape and beatings were wholly unsubstantiated by the doctors who treated her. The majority of thing was spin, start to finish.

[Derius_T]

Now a few of you quoted the Geneva convention, which I will requote, then
say my peace.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health.

A little much. I think. In reguards to the first part, so...we capture them,
but we have to say, "excuse me, would you please mind giving me some
information sir? No, well okay then." ***!? How stupid is this?

And the second part. "So you won't answer our questions? No? Well thats
quite alright sir. No problem. Here's a nice soft bed. Would you like cable? Air condition? Are you comfy? What would you like to drink? Do you like steak? Well, we're so sorry to inconvenience you. We hope you enjoy your stay here. If you feel like answering questions, please let us know okay?
If you need anything, let us know. Thanks for shooting our soldiers. Bye,
bye now."

According to the rules, this is how we must treat them? How do WE get
treated by enemy soldiers? Ask any soldier unlucky enough to be a 'guest'
of the vietnamese, or the japanese, or the iraqis. We insist on being 'above'
them for we are so enlightened, but they have NO PROBLEM ignoring the
"rules" and torturing our guys. It seems to me, if you make a set of RULES,
that are supposed to govern everyone, and someone REFUSES to play by
the rules, the rules no longer APPLY to them. Not that I'm advocating
torture, I'm not....but they shouldn't get a holiday inn vacation either......

[Flyboy]

According to the rules, this is how we must treat them? How do WE get treated by enemy soldiers? Ask any soldier unlucky enough to be a 'guest' of the vietnamese, or the japanese, or the iraqis. We insist on being 'above' them for we are so enlightened, but they have NO PROBLEM ignoring the "rules" and torturing our guys. It seems to me, if you make a set of RULES, that are supposed to govern everyone, and someone REFUSES to play by the rules, the rules no longer APPLY to them.
Ah, yes. The "two wrongs make a right" theory. Never really bought into it myself.
And the second part. "So you won't answer our questions? No? Well thats quite alright sir. No problem. Here's a nice soft bed. Would you like cable? Air condition? Are you comfy? What would you like to drink? Do you like steak? Well, we're so sorry to inconvenience you. We hope you enjoy your stay here. If you feel like answering questions, please let us know okay? If you need anything, let us know. Thanks for shooting our soldiers. Bye,
Allow me to quote verbatim from the part of the Geneva Conventions you quoted:
"Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area."
Are our guys sleeping in soft beds, watching cable TV in air-conditioned tents, dining on steak, and so forth? Then why would we be bound to offer similar conditions to POWs?
Here, let me quote repeat one more of your quotes verbatim:
"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, July 1795.
How do you reconcile that--particularly the bit about "[guarding] even his enemy from oppression"--with your previous statements?

[larryw]

Is what was done right? Of course not, and those responsible are being punished.

What bothers me equally are those who are trying to apply the actions of a few twisted people to the US as a whole. Since there are a few twisted individuals who use guns to murder, does that make all of us here the same?

And please point me to documentation where the US actually signed the particular Geneva Convention that is being banited around as being violated.

Anyone?

[Sparks]

And please point me to documentation where the US actually signed the particular Geneva Convention that is being banited around as being violated.

List of signatories to the 1948 Geneva Convention (http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/party_gc/$File/Conventions%20de%20GenSve%20et%20Protocoles%20additionnels%20ENG-logo.pdf).

[Derius_T]

FlyBoy Wrote:

How do you reconcile that--particularly the bit about "[guarding] even his enemy from oppression"--with your previous statements?

As I said before:

Not that I'm advocating torture, I'm not....but they shouldn't get a holiday inn vacation either.

I'm saying we should stoop to their level, and torture or maim (OPPRESS)
them, but we don't need to coddle and sooth them either! They are
PRISONERS. They should get the same ammenities and accomodations our
people get!? Are you SERIOUS!? When you are a PRISONER, you are a
PRISONER, not an honored guest....by its very definition being a PRISONER
means you are to be DEPRIVED of PRIVLEDGES and FREEDOMS, afforded to
NON-PRISONERS.....

[Flyboy]

They should get the same ammenities and accomodations our people get!? Are you SERIOUS!?
Yes. I am. And so was the US Government when it signed on to the Geneva Conventions, which you so thoughtfully quoted for us. Or does that not count?

Yes, they're denied freedom--that's what "prisoner" means. You can still be a prisoner and be treated civilly (as we promised to do).

We--the United States--made a promise to the world to behave within certain standards when at war. Nobody forced us to do so (certainly not in 1948--who could have done so?); we did it of our own accord. Anybody can live up to a promise when it's easy; principles are what you do when it's inconvenient.

Are you honestly suggesting we abandon our principles, and break a pledge sealed with "our sacred honor," because it's become inconvenient to us?

[larryw]

What was the reservation?

[Luckyorwhat]

larryw "those responsible are being punished."
The thing is that those truly responsible are being promoted. A dozen morons who photographed way too much stuff are going to be punished. Everyone else goes on with their lives.

Derius_T
"They should get the same ammenities and accomodations our
people get!?"

Well, we all die, equally. Why not live equally? I mean, the two guys fighting each other understand each-other's situation better than anyone else on Earth. They have everything in common, even the drywall seperating them. Sort of like "Hey man, my regiment got the ???? kicked out of it by artillery too, I know where you've been."

Benefit of comfortable imprisonment - enemy might surrender rather than fight to the death. Surrendering enemy is a good thing. At Monte Cassino it was calculated that ~$25,000 in munitions were being spent per German casualty, and many wondered what would happen if they simply offered the cash for surrender.

Now enemies know that their choice is between A)being blown up by bombs from an airplane they never see B)being captured and tortured INDEFINATELY C)'coward' weapons; suicide bombers and IEDs

[larryw]

The thing is that those truly responsible are being promoted. A dozen morons who photographed way too much stuff are going to be punished. Everyone else goes on with their lives.

Uh huh, like I said, trying to apply the actions of a few to all. :rolleyes:

Benefit of comfortable imprisonment - enemy might surrender rather than fight to the death.

LOL, are you serious? Have you been paying attention?

[Derius_T]

Are you honestly suggesting we abandon our principles, and break a pledge sealed with "our sacred honor," because it's become inconvenient to us?

We as people do alot of things, when trying to do right, and trying to
set an example for the way one SHOULD behave, that turn around
and bite us in the keister later. I'm not saying become barbarians,
but you have to consider the mindset of the people that we are
dealing with. No matter how good we treat them, no matter how
much we give them, they will always hold us in contempt, and will
always hate us, and always seek to do us harm. NOTHING WE DO
is going to change that. All we are doing by accomodating these
people are showing our weakness (in their eyes) and unworthiness.
All we are doing is soothing our own consciences, so we can say,
"Well, they beheaded, and maimed, and tortured us, but we didn't!
We are better than them!" What the hell good does that do us?
Really? Does it bring back the dead? Does it stop the war?
Does it teach them to respect us? Whats the point?

[Flyboy]

Henry Bowman, et al:
Several of you have stated that you don't believe humiliation is torture. Here's the rebuttal.

In 1971, psychologists at Stanford conducted a now-famous study on prisons and behavior of guards and prisoners. I'm not going to summarize it here; to be honest, I don't think I can. Go read http://www.prisonexp.org/ . Read all of the slides, and pay particular attention to the debriefing at the end. And keep in mind that this ran for only five days, and that all participants were volunteers, who knew what they were getting into before they joined (informed consent).

[Flyboy]

...they will always hold us in contempt, and will always hate us, and always seek to do us harm. NOTHING WE DO is going to change that.
Ah. Well, if nothing we do will change the fact that they hate us, then we may as well treat them as less-than-human.
We are better than them!" What the hell good does that do us? Really? Does it bring back the dead? Does it stop the war? Does it teach them to respect us? Whats the point?
Good question. What's the point of treating them as subhuman? It doesn't seem to be stopping the war, or bringing back the dead, and it certainly doesn't make them respect us.

Go have a look at the top-left corner of this page. You might notice the logo says "The High Road." I wonder, what exactly does that mean to you? That's an honest question--what does it mean to you to take the high road?

(Oh, and on an unrelated topic: please don't hit enter unless you're ending a paragraph. It makes it cumbersome to quote, and the text will wrap fine without it.)

[TonkinTwentyMil]

Ladies and gentlemen:

May I humbly remind you that:

1. Most of the Abu Ghraib/Gitmo press coverage we get is solidly grounded in a very purpose-filled (PC) point of view... and selling a certain (anti-war) agenda. Accordingly, I urge caution when "buying" what they're "selling", and...

2. During the Vietnam War, American combat air crews routinely went through certain pre-deployment Survival and P.O.W. training programs that (would) make Abu Ghraib look like a Girl Scout camp. In fact, the US Navy's infamous "school" in Warner Springs (high desert) California was renowned (feared) for its reality-based (i.e., real-world stuff from the Korea and early Vietnam experiences) scenario, complete with the "water-board", hyper-claustrophobic (2' x 2' x 3') locking individual "caskets", 2-on-one interrogation... with brutal punching, machine-gun towers (firing very loud blanks) and all the usual sleep/food/etc. deprivations. I've heard that this has been toned down in recent years as Clintonized PC-ness sought to groom a Kinder/Gentler/Less-Macho/Uni-sex military... perhaps because one officer actually SUED the Navy after his training school experience!

Now, if only those MEAN-AND-NATHTY Al Queda insurgents and (MERTHY GOODNETH!) not-in-any-national-uniform Terrorists will grant us the right to sue THEM -- perhaps in the World Court -- for (a) flying airplanes into our buildings, and (b) torturing/beheading civilian non-combatants... then perhaps we can make 'em see the light without shedding any blood at all!

And then we can all get-along, play nice-nice, and sing "Kumbaya" around a camp-fire. And the NY TIMES can write about the triumph of non-violence. And we can Bring The Troops Home (isn't that what they're made for?). And the U.S. can drastically cut military spending -- the old Peace Dividend -- and we can start spending more money on social programs like our *wiser* Euro "allies", thus re-launching the Welfare State.

[Henry Bowman]

Flyboy -- I read your rebuttal link completely. I am unconvenced. I an not condoning sadism. As much as we may at time want to "get even," that is not what I am defending. Interrogation is a proper proceedure. I still think that it is fortunate that the people of this culture are so easily knocked off kilter by such mild techniques.

On the other hand, you may be right that if we all sit around with the terrorists and sing Kumbya and then send them home to spread the good will, they will surely all have a change of heart.

[Flyboy]

On the other hand, you may be right that if we all sit around with the terrorists and sing Kumbya and then send them home to spread the good will, they will surely all have a change of heart.
I am suggesting no such thing. I recognize that nothing we do is likely to change that, particularly nothing we do in prison. I'm not suggesting that we treat them humanely because it'll fix things.

Rather, I'm suggesting that we treat them humanely because it's the right thing to do. Nietzche once said to "let those who fight monsters take care lest they themselves become monsters;" that's exactly the point here. Is is important to maintain clean hands, particularly when going to war on moral grounds.

[Henry Bowman]

I think we simply disagree on the definition of "humane." Granted, that may be no small issue. However, I can sleep well at night knowing that an American female (military or otherwise) engaged in behavior in front of "suspected" terrorists that would be too mild to sell in a "Spring Break Miami -- Girls Gone Wild" video, and that said detainee/prisoner was upset by it.

EOM

[jsalcedo]

At least we aren't putting them on a pork fat slip and slides or wafting frying bacon smell at them. :neener:

Regarding the article.

So she was having sex with multiple partners in front of the prisoners.

First of all I don't think its inhumane from my perspective.

But I have questions.

Did they plan this out? Was this in their interogation for dummies book?
Did they have "sexual humiliation" on their daily planner?

Was she just a slut with no morals that got her jollies in front of an audience?

I'm not a prude or anything but this type behavior in our armed forces is disconcerting.

[Luckyorwhat]

Umm, yes, R2I technique is based on sexual elements.

As for absolute proof the treating prisoners humanely makes them surrender, look at the Eastern Front in WW2. Compare how many surrendered to Russians versus how many surrendered to Americans. Look at Wavell in N.Africa! Jesus it is win-win situation to not perform evil acts.

This reversal of policy is unprecedented in western history, very very strange. Very very scary. If people sound like they are coming down on the USA it is likely nothing personal, just a desperate guttoral sense of self preservation.

[R.H. Lee]

Eh, give Ahmed a good old fashioned liberty lapdance, I say. Let freedom ring!

[Derius_T]

Go have a look at the top-left corner of this page. You might notice the logo says "The High Road." I wonder, what exactly does that mean to you? That's an honest question--what does it mean to you to take the high road?

(Oh, and on an unrelated topic: please don't hit enter unless you're ending a paragraph. It makes it cumbersome to quote, and the text will wrap fine without it.)

To me, it means to rise above, and to be morally strong, and stand up for your beliefs. But, that is not what is at question here. You believe what they did to the prisoners was morally wrong, I don't. I believe certain measures must be taken to secure information, that could keep more of our brave soldiers form dying. Now as I have said, I do not advocate physical torture, but being made 'uncomfortable' is too harsh? Good GOD, how wishy washy do we have to get? We used to be a strong country. Respected and feared for our resolve, and willingness to back it up with a boot in your @ss! Now we are a joke among world leaders, who know we will bend right over for the sake of being 'PC'. It discusts me. Does being 'morally right' or taking the 'high road' mean that you can't kick a little @ss when necessary, cause it might hurt someones feelings? Where do we draw the line? When do we say, enough is enough?

(and as to the typing, alot of these boards are different format, so I will try to remember to stay away from that pesky 'ol enter key)

[gc70]

I am not really comfortable with the slippery slope between coersion and torture. I am also uncomfortable with the choice between the standards attached to 'prisoner of war' and 'illegal noncombatant.'

If the prisoners are 'prisoners of war' then I guess there would be no interrogation except "name, rank, and serial number" and they would be entitled to little beachside cabannas, exercise and recreation areas, care packages from home, and the right to communicate any intelligence they could to their buddies 'back home.' There is no way that I find that acceptable.

If the prisoners are 'illegal noncombatants' it appears that the US courts want to give them all possible rights and protections available under US law. Hauling a guy with an AK-47 out of a hole after a firefight in Afghanistan is somewhat different from an arrest made on a warrant issed by a judge. But the civil and criminal laws of the US are simply not suited to dealing with those prisoners.

A number of the prisoners have already been returned to their countries of origin (4 went to the UK recently) and many of those were promptly set free. Some of the ones that have been freed have already made their way back into battle and have been killed. That may be the best solution - set them free and hope that during the next violent encounter we can kill them before they can injure more Americans. On the other hand, I would not want to be the officer who had to inform a soldier's loved ones that the soldier had been killed by a former prisoner who was freed so that the US could hold the moral high ground against terrorists.

[Luckyorwhat]

Good point about the slippery slope, couldn't agree more. For instance, most people here are using the barbarism of the insurents to justify further barbarism, though the isurgent barbarism was a direct result of our actions towards them.

1) Iraqis tread J. Lynch admirably. 2)American prisons horrifically abuse Iraqis. 3) Iraqi insurgents dress captives up like prisoners in A.G. and behead them. 4) _______________? (fill in the blank)


"A number of the prisoners have already been returned to their countries of origin (4 went to the UK recently) and many of those were promptly set free. Some of the ones that have been freed have already made their way back into battle and have been killed."

About that, it's actually a horrifying episode. The people arrested and sent to Cuba had all sorts of evidence to prove their innocence. Witnesses, documents, the utter impossibility of them being where they were accused of being. Ordinary innocent civilians were grabbed off the street and sent to a kennel in Cuba. They were there for years.Years. Years! This really, honestly, actually could happen to anyone. Anyone.

[Sparks]

If the prisoners are 'prisoners of war' then I guess there would be no interrogation except "name, rank, and serial number" and they would be entitled to little beachside cabannas, exercise and recreation areas, care packages from home, and the right to communicate any intelligence they could to their buddies 'back home.' There is no way that I find that acceptable.
You just described a WW2 PoW camp (except for the beachside bit and the letters to home bit). You would prefer instead that all PoWs be executed out of hand?
(And this is still assuming that Achmed is actually a PoW and not a guy picked up on the side of the mountain while tending goats).

Some of the ones that have been freed have already made their way back into battle and have been killed.
Any chance of getting to see the source for that?

[Joey2]

We are suppose to be a Christian nation. It sounds like we have lost our moral direction by allowing ourselves to be sucked into the same sewer as the muslims.

Just imagine what the backlash would be if the muslims were doing the same thing to Americans being held prisoner? You would be screaming from the roof tops.

[R.H. Lee]

We are suppose to be a Christian nation. It sounds like we have lost our moral direction by allowing ourselves to be sucked into the same sewer as the muslims. Actually a case could be made that we're the ones that created the sewer with the filth, perversion, sadism and degeneracy that emanates from Hollywood and the liberal left. Fundamental Islam has a big problem with that trash being foisted off on them.

[moby clarke]

but this is still funny:
A person wrote a letter to the White House complaining about the treatment of a captive taken during the Afghanistan war. Attached is a copy of a letter they received back:
The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.
Dear Concerned Citizen:
Thank you for your recent letter roundly criticizing our treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. My administration takes these matters seriously, and your opinion was heard loud and clear here in Washington.
You'll be pleased to learn that, thanks to the concerns of citizens like you, we are creating a new division of the Terrorist Retraining Program, to be called the "Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers" program, or LARK for short.
In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to place one terrorist under your personal care. Your personal detainee has been selected and scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence next Monday. Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of admonishment. It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant caretakers. We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommended in your letter.
Ahmed's meal requirements are simple, but we strongly suggest serving meals that do not require utensils, particularly knives and forks. Also, these should be "one-handed" foods; Ahmed will not eat with his left hand since he uses it to wipe himself after purging his bowels (which he will do in your yard) - but look on the bright side.. no increase in the toilet paper bill. He generally bathes quarterly with the change of seasons, assuming that it rains, and he washes his clothes simultaneously. This should help with your water bill. Also, your new friend has a really bad case of body lice that hasn't been completely remedied.
Please heed the large orange notice attached to your detainee's cage: "Does not play well with others." Although Ahmed is sociopathic and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his "attitudinal problem" will help him overcome these character flaws. Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences. He will bite you, given the chance, but his rabies test came back negative so not to worry.
We understand that you plan to offer counseling and home schooling. Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers. We do not suggest that you ask him to demonstrate these skills at your next yoga group. He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.
Ahmed will not wish to interact with your wife or daughters (except sexually) since he views females as a subhuman form of property. However, he will be eager to assist with the education of your sons; have available for their use several copies of the Koran. Oh - and rest assured he absolutely loves animals, especially cats and dogs. He prefers them roasted, but raw is fine, too, if they aren't more than 2 or 3 days dead.
Thanks again for your letter. We truly appreciate it when folks like you, who know so much, keep us informed of the proper way to do our job. We think this watching over each other's shoulder is such a good way for people to interact that we will be sending a team of federal officials with expertise in your line of work to your place of business soon, just to help you do your job better. Don't be concerned that they have the power to close your business, seize your property, and arrest you for any violation of the 4,850,206 laws, codes, regulations and rules that apply to your profession. They're really there just to make sure you're doing everything the proper way. That is what you wanted, right?
Well, thank you for this opportunity to interact with such a valued member of the citizenry. You take good care of Ahmed - and remember...we'll be watching.

[Luckyorwhat]

RileyMC,
You could also point out that it is the American Right-wing that pushes the Left-Wing filth. The left makes the stuff, the right makes a profit on the stuff.

[Joey2]

Riley Mc, I agree. Just turn your T.V. on, go to the movies, look around how are youth, and some of the older generation, dress, listen to how our youth talk, etc, etc.

[gc70]

Sparks:
You just described a WW2 PoW camp (except for the beachside bit and the letters to home bit). You would prefer instead that all PoWs be executed out of hand?The "beachside bit" was an intentional reference to the fact that Guantanamo is a naval base on a tropical island, otherwise the land would be a prime site for a resort development.

Your reference to executions was not called for and certainly does not reflect my sentiments.

True prisoners of war should be accorded all of the protections of the Geneva Convention. I object to terrorists who hide in the shadows and wear civilian clothing being given the same protections as uniformed military personnel who are captured during wartime. As to your inappropriate suggestion that I might prefer that POWs be executed, I would remind you that military personnel captured out of uniform during World War II were considered spies and many were (legally) executed on the spot.

Had you read my post fully, you would have noted that I concluded that the prisoners at Guantanamo should probably be set free. Any prisoners set free would hopefully return to their homes and live a peaceful life. (This approach would also neatly address the issue of Achmed the innocent goat herder.) Unfortunately, such an approach presents a moral dilema when applied to men who lack the honor to keep their pledge to not return to battle in exchange for their freedom. Therefore, if they returned to battle, it would be my fervent hope that they would be killed before they killed others.

gc70:
Some of the ones that have been freed have already made their way back into battle and have been killed.Sparks:
Any chance of getting to see the source for that?How about this article (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04292/397649.stm) which was the first item listed in a Google search for "guantanamo detainees freed killed battle."

[Luckyorwhat]

That seems a little strange, they let them go? Umm, people were saying 'charge them', you know, legally. If they were set free there are 2 reasons, #1 they were harmless and innocent #2 They were followed and led US airstrikes to their boss's headquarters.

As #1 the innocent absolutely incontrovetibly wronged Brits were held for years without charges, I think option #1 is unlikely.

As the ones recaptured were dead, #2 looks likely.

Assuming #3 this article is true.

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Wow, psychological pressure on an interrogation subject, imagine that, the horror! <yawn>

No electrodes hooked up to gonads? And this is supposed to be torture?

Geeze, I've put up with worse than this at some jobs I've had.

[Luckyorwhat]

Is that why the press is pushing this story? So that the public thinks this is the torture people are referring to? Damn, they don't miss a beat. A month from now people won't remember anything but that prisoners had to strip naked and get lap-dances.

Prisoners are KILLED, REVIVeD, and TORTURED TO DEATH AGAIN.

Why do most kids commit suicide? Because they are made-fun-of! Geese, you can't minimize the effects of psychological anguish. Then it should also be pointed out that the genitals have not been neglected, beatings focusing specifically on the genitals can last hours. No mention of electrodes that I can recall, but current evidence does not suggest they were too sqeamish to use electro-shock.

[Firethorn]

Are you basing all this on Abu Graib? I agree that what they did there was inappropriate, however, there are points about legitimate questioning tactics.

Lucky, where's your proof of this? The stuff you described is ACTUAL torture. That is not what's going on. Remember, all sorts of civilian agencies have inspected Gitmo, where the ones suspected enough for us to fly them around the world are kept.

Question Lucky - I really like my internet. If I'm captured and held in a POW camp, is it torture to deprive me of my internet?

From all accounts, Iraqi soldiers taken as POW's were treated just fine. Cases where they weren't are investigated. The vast majority of the ones in question were caught after the end of major combat actions. Comparing situations when they have like three prisoners versus our thousands is not always fair. For example - Do you have proof that we deliberatly delayed treatment of wounds? Remember triage? Where they decide who needs treatment first?

Why do most kids commit suicide? Because they are made-fun-of!

This just goes to show, different people break at different things. And I kinda disagree with "being made fun of" as the major cause. And on the other hand, there's always the teen who had an accident up in the mountains, his hand became trapped, and he cut it off with a knife to get back to civilization. Are you seriously equating terrorists as being as fragile as depressed kids?

[Derius_T]

Luckyorwhat: Prisoners are KILLED, REVIVeD, and TORTURED TO DEATH AGAIN

Care to provide any solid PROOF of this? I have proof they got lap dances and dog leashes, but I didn't see any missing body parts????

And if you disagree so vehemently about their treatment, why don't you go apply for a job taking care of them? Get a little first hand look at these 'innocent' people who are being sooooo abused. Take off their restraints, make 'em play nicey-nicey. Anyone want to place a wager on how fast you die?

[DRZinn]

Shame Is Not Torture.

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Prisoners are KILLED, REVIVeD, and TORTURED TO DEATH AGAIN.

Somehow I doubt that US Forces are able to raise the dead. They're pretty good at the reverse process though :D

Why do most kids commit suicide? Because they are made-fun-of! Geese, you can't minimize the effects of psychological anguish.

Boo hoo, the poor Al-Queda mass murderer wannabe was taunted about his high water pants and was not allowed to sit at the lunch table with the cool kids.

Then it should also be pointed out that the genitals have not been neglected, beatings focusing specifically on the genitals can last hours. No mention of electrodes that I can recall, but current evidence does not suggest they were too sqeamish to use electro-shock.

Your assertions to the contrary, there is no evidence whatsoever that US Forces have used electro-shock or any other technique that even barely meets the definition of torture.

Playground taunts and lap dances are not torture techniques.

[Sparks]

there are points about legitimate questioning tactics.
To belabour a point, there are two possible statuses for Guantanamo detainees - civilian suspects under arrest, and PoWs. If the former, then questioning is legal, but several rights are being denied such as the right to legal representation, and torture of any kind is not legal; if the latter, then no questioning is legal and several rights are being denied such as the right to not be photographed in a humiliating manner, the right to not be tortured, and so on.
Either way, questioning of the form that has taken place and is taking place, is just not legal under US law, the uniform code of military justice, or the geneva conventions.

[Henry Bowman]

Times are tough. Let's face it -- the early 21st century is not a good time to be a terrorist against the United States. (Late 20th century was much better.)

[Luckyorwhat]

Ok then, I guess I'll have to get researching to find all the articles which detailed the abuses. Fair enough to ask for evidence, can't complain there.

I would suggest you take a side, though. Everyone says 'I support our soldiers! I support them!'

Well it's crunch time. Do you support torture, or do you support your soldiers? You CANNOT support both. IF you torture enemy soldiers, then YOUR soldiers WILL be tortured when they are captured.

Make a call, support your troops or support torture. You honestly can't have it both ways.

And I'll look into those sources.

But seriously think about it, it's one thing to say 'they're just questioning techinques' - it's another thing to be condemning your own sons to those same techniques, and worse.

BTW I wish I could swear, but WHAT kind of useful intel are you going to get torturing a prisoner 3 years after he was captured? They already showed that most made stuff up just to end the pain the first time they were tortured. 3 years later?! They were holding out for 1200 days? IIRC 3 days and your intel is useless, soldiers just have to hold out until their info is not timely.

[R.H. Lee]

Well it's crunch time. Do you support torture, or do you support your soldiers? The question presumes torture is happening, which has not been established or proven.

[Firethorn]

Lucky, I am one of those soldiers. Or at least Airman.

Actually, we can question POW's all we want. We just can't try to force them to answer. It's much like questioning a suspect of a crime.

As for the three years thing, many of their operations take years. Also, getting more information about who's in these terrorist networks is always good. It's not like Osama is a new figure in the terrorist world. It's not like anybody on the news is new in the terrorist world. And as far as I know, we're still shipping new prisoners to Gitmo.

Now I will say that I find it somewhat disturbing that no determination of the status of many of these prisoners has been made, but I do think that it's a difficult proposition. We know that most of them are still dangerous if we let them go, but how often we don't have enough evidence to convict them "beyond a reasonable doubt".

[Henry Bowman]

it's another thing to be condemning your own sons to those same techniques Like a strip show??? :confused: Arguing that beheading with a dull saw is equivalent (or even in the same universe) will not be convincing.

[Derius_T]

LuckyorWhat:

I would suggest you take a side, though.

I've already taken a side. Its the US against terrorism.

Well it's crunch time. Do you support torture, or do you support your soldiers? You CANNOT support both.

That statement can't be answered until you PROVE that torture is happening. And in my book, no matter how you word it, lapdances, naked women rubbing on me, and live porn just can't be torture.

But seriously think about it, it's one thing to say 'they're just questioning techinques' - it's another thing to be condemning your own sons to those same techniques, and worse.

I have family members that hope and pray that if they get captured that they will get the same 'torture'. Unfortunately, for our soldiers, it will be much, much worse.....

[Luckyorwhat]

Damn, it already worked! I swear those press guys are geniuses. The public already has forgotten what happened and replaced it with being stripped naked and getting lap dances from chicks in thongs. It's upsetting, but it makes me smile it's just so well executed!

You have to understand that a LOT of officers are rather upset by this. They actually take codes of honour very seriously, this does not sit well with them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1211351,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43783-2004May20.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1378206,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1399411,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3759923.stm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1895398
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1223180,00.html


"The scandal at Abu Ghraib prison was first exposed not by a digital photograph but by a letter. In December 2003, a woman prisoner inside the jail west of Baghdad managed to smuggle out a note. Its contents were so shocking that, at first, Amal Kadham Swadi and the other Iraqi women lawyers who had been trying to gain access to the US jail found them hard to believe.
The note claimed that US guards had been raping women detainees, who were, and are, in a small minority at Abu Ghraib. Several of the women were now pregnant, it added. The women had been forced to strip naked in front of men, it said. The note urged the Iraqi resistance to bomb the jail to spare the women further shame."

"Kaus says the photographs should never have been shown to the public because they will incite violence against Americans."

"I've read reports from capturing units where the capturing unit wrote, "the target was not at home. The neighbour came out to see what was going on and we grabbed him,"

"A military lawyer involved in the investigation into the Abu Ghraib prison scandal testified that the commander of coalition forces in Iraq, General Ricardo Sanchez, was present at some prisoner interrogations at the jail and witnessed some of the abuse, it was reported yesterday."

"Of the Iraqi images, the most chilling was the hooded man standing on a box, with wires attached to him. He was reportedly told he would be electrocuted if he moved. According to the CIA manual, threatening him with electrocution may have been better than the real thing: "The threat of coercion usually weakens or destroys resistance more effectively than coercion itself. For example, the threat to inflict pain can trigger fears more damaging than the immediate sensation of pain." However, "if a subject refuses to comply after a threat has been made, it must be carried out. Otherwise, subsequent threats will also prove ineffective."

"Some said they were pressed to denounce Islam or were force-fed pork and liquor. Many provided graphic details of how they were sexually humiliated and assaulted, threatened with rape, and forced to masturbate in front of female soldiers."

"Hilas also said he witnessed an Army translator having sex with a boy at the prison. He said the boy was between 15 and 18 years old. Someone hung sheets to block the view, but Hilas said he heard the boy's screams and climbed a door to get a better look. Hilas said he watched the assault and told investigators that it was documented by a female soldier taking pictures. "

"Graner was sodomizing him with the phosphoric light, Mustafa said. The detainee "was screaming for help. There was another tall white man who was with Graner -- he was helping him. There was also a white female soldier, short, she was taking pictures."

"He also said Graner repeatedly threw the detainees' meals into the toilets and said, "Eat it."

"At Camp Whitehorse near Nasiriya, guards were allegedly told to prepare prisoners for interrogation by keeping them in hoods in temperatures of up to 49C degrees (120F) for 50 minutes at a time over periods of 10 hours. One Iraqi detainee choked to death.

At a camp near Qaim, interrogators allegedly stuffed an Iraqi general into a sleeping bag, sat on his chest and covered his mouth. Maj Gen Abed Hamed Mowhoush, who had also been questioned by CIA operatives, eventually died."



Oh, here are a few pictures that one stupid, really stupid British soldier gave to his neighbourhood photo-lab to develop.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,1393803,00.html

[gc70]

I knew there was some reason that I was not shedding tears over the image of the ever-virtuous Muslims being 'tortured' to total mental breakdown by sexual provocation.MrTuffPaws
The reason this is torture to them is that Muslims and Arabs in general have grevious taboos against touching women other than than their wives. Remember, adultry for them is a crime punishable by death.Let's take a fuller look at the extreme sexual morality of Muslims.

Adultery is a crime often punishable by stoning to death under Sharia law. Of course, it is tough to find 4 male Muslim eyewitness to the actual act of penetration as is required to get a conviction. So there does not seem to be much adultery in the Muslim world, unless somebody wants to make a confession. (One of 4,520 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/casestudy_art07.shtml) Google results for "sharia +zina")

Speaking of adultery confessions, a woman's accusation of rape is accepted as a confession of adultery if she can not produce the required number of eyewitnesses to prove her rape charge. So there does not seem to be much rape in the Muslim world, either, unless the guy wants to confess. (One of 46,300 (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5676) Google results for "sharia +rape")

Of course, Muslim men also have a nifty method of letting off steam so they will not be tempted into adultery or rape - it is called mutah, or temporary marriage. Mutah may be officially frowned upon, but there is even a Mutah website (http://www.mutah.com/) to help good Muslims on their way. It all boils down to how long the couple will be 'married' and the mahr, or gift, that the husband will give to his new wife. (See Misconception #9 (http://www.islamfortoday.com/athar03.htm)) Does "how about a hundred for the night" have a familiar ring?

I do not mean to suggest that all Muslim men are sex fanatics. Indeed, Islam advocates sexual restraint, just as Christianity does. However, the high hurdle of Sharia law functionally gives license to even hideous sexual misconduct. A grievous sexual taboo without any real enforcement is no more than words without meaning. In such circumstances, I do not believe that the average Muslim man is substantially more sexually restrained, even though probably more circumspect, than the average Christian man. And if a lap-dance doesn't drive the average Baptist into the psychological abyss, I don't think it will do so to the average Muslim.

[Sparks]

And if you tied Billy Graham to a chair and smeared his face with menstrual blood, you're saying it wouldn't bother him at all?
Besides, there are far more serious charges out there than the "mere" mental anguish ones. Things like waterboarding, the tortures noted in the post above, beatings in Guantanamo that were captured on video, and so on.

[gc70]

I respect serious and substantiated reports of physical torture, which is patently unacceptable. But the howling chorus that labels sexual provocation as life-shattering, mind-breaking torture makes me want to chuckle.

As I have said before, send all but a handful of the detainees home, but shoot them the next time they are encountered with a weapon. For the handful of really valuable sources of intelligence - well, we don't know anything about them because they don't really exist, do they?

[Derius_T]

Sad really. Man, I bet the vast majority of REGULAR OLD PRISONERS right here in the UNITED STATES sure wish the BEATINGS and SEXUAL ASSAULT they suffer were "SIMULATED" like they were with those poor detainees......

[R.H. Lee]

Besides, there are far more serious charges out there than the "mere" mental anguish ones. Things like waterboarding, the tortures noted in the post above, beatings in Guantanamo that were captured on video, and so on. Maybe Ireland would like to take on international terrorism. You can show us how it should be done. :rolleyes:

[Derius_T]

Sparks wrote:

And if you tied Billy Graham to a chair and smeared his face with menstrual blood, you're saying it wouldn't bother him at all?

What I'm saying is, that if your FAITH in your GOD is not strong enough to resist a little fake blood, and some boobs in your face, then maybe religion is not your thing. Maybe you should take up a new hobby? I'm nowhere near as 'spiritual' as Billy Graham, but I'd like to think that MY FAITH is strong enough to resist such weak attempts. Besides, my GOD, would never hold me accountable for things I was FORCED to do.

[Sparks]

Maybe Ireland would like to take on international terrorism. You can show us how it should be done.

Thought we were doing so. The peace process up north may be slow, painful and messy, but on the other hand, no bombings for the past decade, no open warfare in the streets, no thousand-pound bombs going off in canary warf... well, you get the idea. It's not easy, it's not quick, it's not clean, but it does last.

Besides, my GOD, would never hold me accountable for things I was FORCED to do.

Religion's a funny thing in what it demands though. Some religions won't permit blood transfusions, some won't permit sex without an offical sanction from a third party, some demand that you eat your parent's flesh after they die - thing is, I've yet to meet a law of physics that points out one of the thousand or so religions in the world and says "yup, that's the one". So you can't actually say "this religion is better than this one", not with any degree of credibility in an independent observer's eyes anyway. So what your god says is not sufficent legal grounds to permit you to abuse another person.

[Art Eatman]

I guess that's enough drifting. Thanks for the lack of flames...

:), Art