[Drizzt]

America admits suspects died in interrogations

By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
07 March 2003
The Independent (UK)

American military officials acknowledged yesterday that two prisoners captured in Afghanistan in December had been killed while under interrogation at Bagram air base north of Kabul – reviving concerns that the US is resorting to torture in its treatment of Taliban fighters and suspected al-Qa'ida operatives.

A spokesman for the air base confirmed that the official cause of death of the two men was "homicide", contradicting earlier accounts that one had died of a heart attack and the other from a pulmonary embolism.

The men's death certificates, made public earlier this week, showed that one captive, known only as Dilawar, 22, from the Khost region, died from "blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease" while another captive, Mullah Habibullah, 30, suffered from blood clot in the lung that was exacerbated by a "blunt force injury".

US officials previously admitted using "stress and duress" on prisoners including sleep deprivation, denial of medication for battle injuries, forcing them to stand or kneel for hours on end with hoods on, subjecting them to loud noises and sudden flashes of light and engaging in culturally humiliating practices such as having them kicked by female officers.

While the US claims this still constitutes "humane" treatment, human rights groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have denounced it as torture as defined by international treaty. The US has also come under heavy criticism for its reported policy of handing suspects over to countries such as Jordan, Egypt or Morocco, where torture techniques are an established part of the security apparatus. Legally, Human Rights Watch says, there is no distinction between using torture directly and subcontracting it out.

Some American politicians have argued that torture could be justified in this case if it helped prevent terror attacks on US citizens. Jonathan Turley, a prominent law professor at George Washington University, countered that embracing torture would be "suicide for a nation once viewed as the very embodiment of human rights".

Torture is part of a long list of concerns about the Bush administration's respect for international law, after the extrajudicial killing of al-Qa'ida suspects by an unmanned drone in Yemen and the the indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a number of whom have committed or attempted to commit suicide.

President Bush appeared to encourage extra-judicial solutions in his State of the Union address in January when he talked of al-Qa'ida members being arrested or meeting "a different fate". "Let's put it this way," he said in a tone that appalled many, "they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies."

[Zander]

Interesting assertion. Unfortunately, the Brit press can't be trusted to report anything approaching the truth about us.

I"ll believe it when I see it confirmed in a reliable source...

[BigG]

... a nation once viewed as the very embodiment of human rights".

Mr. Britannic Newspaperman, let me share with you what OUR sage Mr. P. J. O'Rourke has to say about human rights: There's only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. P.J. O'Rourke

Kindly think on that before you start telling us what we Americans think.

[rebbryan]

only 2, that's it? c'mon we can do better

[Blackhawk]

War is hell, and people die in them.

[Porter Rockwell]

Have you actually found an American media outlet that's credible?
tell me where to locate unbiassed news Please!
bigG?
Is this O'Rourke fellow a signer of our Constitution, a Senator or what?
Pardon my mood this morningbut I've just read a group of the New Nazis on free republic agreeing to the arrest of people wearing T-shirts printed with peace slogans.
There are more amendments than the 2nd to be concerned about! Each of out rights that fall to the wayside endangers the rest.

[BigG]

Hi Porter, Since when does a POW have rights under the US Constitution?

[moa]

But under the Geneva Convention, this would be a war crime. Right?

[TallPine]

The US has also come under heavy criticism for its reported policy of handing suspects over to countries such as Jordan, Egypt or Morocco, where torture techniques are an established part of the security apparatus.

And so where are the complaints about those countries' human rights violations ???????

[rebbryan]

like my first grade teacher said on the first day "you treat me nice and i'll treat you nice, if you're mean to me then i'm mean to you". if they captured US soldiers i don't think they're gonna give em milk n cookies and sing johnny cash

[DJJ]

War is hell, and people die in them.

That's OK, as long as you feel the same way about, for example, the Bataan Death March, KIA/POW/MIAs in Vietnam, the Marines in Beirut, etc. What say you?

[DaveB]

Gee. I wonder whether this will make the bad guys more or less likely to torture our own soldiers should they be taken.

Hmmm...

db

[12-34hom]

That kind of treatment [if true] only lowers the U.S. to the level of the people we are accusing of the same practices?

Where is the honor in beating a POW to death? No matter what information might be sought.

I was only following orders..............:barf:

12-34hom.

[Porter Rockwell]

Do two wrongs now make a right?
Have you actually read the new Patriot law that may well define YOU as a POW? !!
If in fact America is at war shouldn't we declare one legally and actually define WHO exactly we are at war with?
Attacking peoples and countries on the pretext that they Might attack America should include countries that actually have an air force, navy, ICBMs, and nukes don't ya think?
Can anyone actually believe that Iraq is a larger threat than China-Russia & Israel?
You do know that both China and Russia supplied troops and weapons to the North Vietnese?
Have you read the detailed accounts from the sailors on board the USS Liberty?
Lastly, look to a connection between the Carlise Group and names in the news (Cheney-Bush-Bin Laden)
HAVE Fun!

[4v50 Gary]

Boo hoo? If it saves the lives of Americans and our allies, saive la guerre.

[pax]

Does the Bill of Rights "give" rights, or simply "recognize" inherent human rights?

pax

If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you: but if you really make them think, they'll hate you. -- Don Marquis

[rick_reno]

Too bad they can't revive them and kill them again...and again.

[DaveB]

Does the fact that American soldiers, presumably acting under orders, beat prisoners to death, really not bother you?

Are you for real?

db

[Baba Louie]

Torture is a bad thing.

War is a bad thing.

Getting caught by an enemy is a very bad thing.

Sometimes people die in a war.

Especially people who make war.

Its a given.

Hard, cold and cruel, but I think you can say it is a reality that most would call a TRUTH. A real honest to Allah TRUTH.

If you make war, you'd better win.

Cause second place don't count.

Its a crying shame that these gentlemen expired while in American hands, during interrogation processing. Hopefully (thinking like them for half a par-sec), they died with Allah or Mother on their lips and didn't give up any info that could be useful to their enemies... but in the long run, do you really care?

When I start to think that "I really care", I remember that actual Americans on airplanes actually had time to call their loved ones on their cell phones before they became human bombs, killing more Americans/Allies/Innocent human beings.

This is a very real WAR.

Its about to get MORE REAL.

I don't like it. I hate the concept of two people(s) squaring off against each other because talking does no good anymore.

But I don't want to be in second place. I remember 65 - 75. Great troops lead by politicians who had no real concept of total war; they wanted a clean war. Can't fire on SAM sites till they light you up? What?

Be nice to the prisoners, don't torture them. They'll say whatever you want to hear under torture usually.

I've never seen my buddy killed by an enemy or held him in my arms as he lay dying. I think that could cause a lot of very negative thoughts towards the enemy.

I'm sorry they died.

Kinda.

What did Mrs. Beamer hear her husband say to others on the phone that morning? I'll never forget it. What torture?

Adios

[pax]

High Road, people.

Advocation of torture for "recreational purposes" and particularly discussions of various means of torture is not the High Road.

We are NOT here to show off how devious and barbaric we can be. A goodly part of the mission of THR is to provide a positive example of and for the firearms community at large.

Discussion of EFFECTIVENESS and MORALITY of torture -- on topic.
Discussion of HOW TO torture will get this thread closed. Quickly.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

pax

The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience. -- Albert Camus

[El Tejon]

Physical torture is self-defeating and not in our best interests. With the wide availability of psych techniques and modern narcotics, this, if true, is foolish and hurtful to us.:(

[Sean Smith]

I'd suggest that the report in question is probably bogus, or obviously misrepresenting the facts. Alot of Brit tabloid sludge about American "torture" of prisoners has been proven to be bogus. Withold judgement until a DECENT source has something to say.

[DaveB]

Sean, did you read the post? I'll bold the important parts:

American military officials acknowledged yesterday that two prisoners captured in Afghanistan in December had been killed while under interrogation at Bagram air base north of Kabul – reviving concerns that the US is resorting to torture in its treatment of Taliban fighters and suspected al-Qa'ida operatives.

I actually hope you're right (this time).

Going on, killing your enemy in war is one thing. Killing prisoners is different. Gee. Maybe that'll be W's legacy: he's going to need one.

db

[cratz2]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, like it or not, the enemy is tortured in every war and every 'police action'. If the other side does it, and they do, it's the only way we can win.

To paraphrase a great man, passive people live in harmony and sleep well in this country because less passive folks are out doing their bidding.

[Art Eatman]

How about a moment of "Whoa up!", people?

The article did not say that torture in the form of physical violence was the cause of the deaths. It said "stress and duress" was used in harsh interrogation--which might not be sweetsy-pie but isn't the usual notion of "torture"--and described some forms of this stress and duress.

Scenario: Sleep deprivation, hog fat, whatever. Not nice. Prisoner goes a bit bonkers and attacks the "torturers". He gets a dose of nightstick. It can be just as valid an assumption that death was not the intent of the nightsticking as the assumption that he was "tortured to death".

A captive has the potential for violence, yes; but he's essentially helpless, really. Laughing over his death strikes me as pretty low-rent. Hen-house ways...

Acceptance of allegations of needless cruelty without a full knowledge of the facts, is not particularly wise, also...

I wasn't there. I don't know the truth of the matter.

Art

[pax]

For those who doubt the BBC reports, see:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/06/attack/main543011.shtml

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2337296

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42373-2003Mar4.html

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-us-afghan-prisoners,0,4044209.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

pax

I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually. -- James Baldwin

[Baba Louie]

Fox News was just talking about this. Apparently both men had "Heart/Medical Conditions", but according to the autopsy, "blunt force trauma" was cause.

Didn't say who or when "blunt trauma" was applied.

Adios

[Coltdriver]

My comments withdrawn

[El Tejon]

Colt, in fighting monsters, it is important not to become the monster.

There is no reason to drive bystanders or the undecided into the hands of the radical nutballs or tyrants.

[seeker_two]

American military officials acknowledged yesterday that two prisoners captured in Afghanistan in December had been killed while under interrogation at Bagram air base north of Kabul – reviving concerns that the US is resorting to torture in its treatment of Taliban fighters and suspected al-Qa'ida operatives.

And the problem is...??? :scrutiny:

[JPM70535]

While I certainly do not condone physical torture of bonafide POWs, I feel no compassion for those terrorists whose idea of a military operation is to hijack a commercial airliner and crash it into a building full of innocent civilians whose only crime was being there at the time.

When these type tactics are seen by the perpetrators as wholly acceptable in the eyes of Allah, and the rewards for carrying out such operations include 47 Virgins and martyrdom, I have great difficulty assigning the status of POW to them when captured.

In fairness, there are probably countless non physical means of interrogation that would yield compliance and cooperation from these captives, and I have no doubt these methods are being used. If in the course of non physical interrogations the terrorist expires, all I can say is OH WELL.

[jmbg29]

Gee. I wonder whether this will make the bad guys more or less likely to torture our own soldiers should they be taken.Is that some sort of joke? Guys that slit womens throats in order to fly planes into buildings are going to care about how we treat them? The mind boggles!:rolleyes: Didn't say who or when "blunt trauma" was applied.Gee Baba Louie, you seem to not be jumping to conclusions. You would never get far as a news urinalist with that sort of attitude.;) :p

[Preacherman]

Bear in mind that at the time of the Bagram fighting, and for some time afterward, there were very few US forces on the ground there. Most of them were Special Forces personnel providing target indication to the USAF and USN, and training indigenous fighters opposing the Taliban. If prisoners were being interrogated, it's an odds-on probability that those doing the interrogating were Afghans, not US personnel, simply due to the very limited numbers of the latter available - and the language problem. As is widely known, Afghans have never been particularly merciful to one another, particularly when interrogating prisoners of "war" from opposing factions... I'd say it's surprising that more prisoners did not meet this fate!

None of the above should be interpreted as in any way condoning torture. It's always, everywhere, the wrong thing to do. However, many in less civilized societies don't share this world view, and would regard us as pantywaisted sissies (or worse) for our reluctance to indulge in this widespread pastime...

[.45FMJoe]

Stuff happens, life is a *****. Where was the mercy on 9/11? F every last one of them. If they die horrendous deaths, you won't see me disheartened.

[Chris Rhines]

The perpetrators of such sickening crimes need to go before a court, and then go to the gallows.

As for those of you who would condone such behaivor, I'll just stick to the high road and say nothing.

- Chris

[Atticus]

I agree that the people responsible should be charged, if this is true. BUT.. before anyone starts with the holier than thou BS.... don't forget that - WE ARE PROBABLY THE ONLY COUNTRY ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH THAT WOULD DO SO.

[Freedspeak]

Not having been a POW, and having direct experience, I can't say what would be considered torture. I do know what we were told to expect in the Nam conflict, and most was considered torture at that time.

As to POW there are limits agreed upon by many nations as to what constitutes torture.

These were POW's from Afgan; however we need to know if the injuries were from intrigation or from other causes. Might not religious zelots (of any stripe) injure themselves or others to promote their aganda( ie: become martyrs?)?

If we have been doing this kind of interig.ati

on then we are definately violating the concepts that we profess to defend, and the terrorist are winning and destroying our way of life!

As to the heart failure aspect, wasn't it used in an old Hienlein story, any death can be attributed to heart failure

Atticus
I agree with that view.

[boing]

Well, as long as it's them, and not us, right?

After all, they're "enemy combatants", and we're US "citizens".

And a bolt gun is a terrorist weapon.

Words to die by: "It can't happen here!"

[1goodshot]

The enemy doesnt play by the rules why should we.

[Khornet]

I have no doubt that the slightest trangression on America's part will be amplified and trumpeted by the press, especially much of the British press. But we don't know enough.

Art,as usual, saw the truth. We don't know how the 'blunt trauma' occurred; could have been simple self-defense on the part of the captors, who elected to club the guy instead of shooting him. If it was torture, it was criminal. But we don't know.

Prisoners are often hurt before capture. Injured extremities tend to grow clots. Clots break free and go to lungs, as in one of the above cases, causing death. Who knows? Men have died of heart attacks under nonviolent interrogation before.

We just have to wait and see. But I can't stomach the glee with which some of America's enemies received this news.

[Zander]

But King said this did not mean the deaths were the result of criminal acts by U.S. personnel.Let's continue jumping to conclusions and aiding those who are determined to find a moral equivalency. :rolleyes:

[ahenry]

For the sake of this post, allow me to stipulate that this prisoner was beaten to death by Americans, which is something I am not convinced actually occurred.

Lest you misunderstand what I am about to say, I will state my view clearly. I do not condone or support torture, no matter who it is done to and no matter “how many lives it might save”. That said, I can’t help but think that those who are so very upset about this have never been in a military type of environment or really possessing of much understanding of what happens in war. I could be mistaken but I can’t help but think something along the lines of, “that’s what happens when you pick a fight” (keep in mind my previous statement about torture). An overzealous lieutenant, a pissed off sergeant, a scared private are all fertile ground for breeding such action. Moreover, anybody that’s spent much time around prison guards also knows that it is easy for them to develop a “God complex” (don’t know the technical term). In fact America spends much money on psychologists and makes a huge effort to ensure that the guards at our Stateside prisons don’t go overboard in their actions. I’ll believe that America and this administration condones torture and the beating of prisoners right after I watch Bossy jump the moon and see pigs fall from the sky.


(To borrow the idea from Pax),
It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow fond of it. Robert E. Lee.

[Drjones]

If any one has delusions about whether or not these same people would torture and kill our soldiers I hate to be blunt but you are kidding yourselves. Or perhaps you have not fully contemplated who we are dealing with. Remember Danny Pearl?


So we defeat terrorists by becoming terrorists?

Interesting...

Torture in the name of "Freedom."

Banning guns in the name of "Safety."

Difference? :scrutiny:

If we sink to the level of terrorists by torturing them, please tell me why we deserve to defend ourselves from them?

Killing them in war is one thing. Heck, even assasinations.

But torture?

No thanks.

[Drjones]

The enemy doesnt play by the rules why should we.

The Saudis stone to death women who expose more than their eyes.

Why shouldn't we?


Saddam shoots people who disagree with him.

Why shouldn't we?


Hitler tried to exterminate jews.

Why shouldn't we?


The terrorists hate freedom, and do not care for basic human rights.

Why should we care?

[DeltaElite]

Well as punishment I am against torture of any kind.

If we need info to prevent attacks and save American lives. I am for the proper use of alternate interrogation methods.
FWIW, psych methods can do more than pain methods anyway.

[Harold Mayo]

I guess you shouldn't become a member of a violent and malevolent group that claims responsibility for the destruction of American property and killing of innocent American citizens on U.S. soil, huh?

Military targets are one thing but, when you start killing innocents, the rules change. Combatants are expected to go into harm's way and they expect danger and the possibility of death. When you kill innocents, you get what you deserve.

I hope that it IS true.:fire:

[TheLastBoyScout]

if they captured US soldiers i don't think they're gonna give em milk n cookies and sing johnny cash

It's already proven they don't. Remember that big furball near Tora Bora a year ago? We have UAV footage of them capturing a SEAL, restraining him, walking him a distance, then shooting him once, in the head, execution style.

<hypothetical>
Why we should keep any of those terrorists alive after they've outlived their usefulness, if you accept that turnabout is fair play?

[ahadams]

Okay first off terrorists are not POWs they are captured enemy combatants. The fedgov was very careful to define this early on, and this appears to be a new legal category to distinguish them from enemy soldiers, in uniform, captured in combat. I do NOT know what the legal implications of this difference may be.

While as a retired intel professional (hey I drove a desk - I never did 'special' anything and make no claim otherwise.) I can state categorically that use of physical torture generally does NOT produce reliable data (there's a lot of evidence over a long period of time that the guy being tortured is almost always going to end up saying whatever he thinks the torturers want to hear - doh!) In this case there is no indication that the blunt force trauma did not occur prior to American custody of the subjects.

One of the reasons that we've kept the Brits and Canada as our closest allies is that they're among the very few countries who always do their best to play by the rules. Remember that other players in the region on whom America depends (like Pakistan, f'rinstance) could care less about the Geneva and Hague conventions and would not enforce them under any circumstances. In fact I would submit that one of the reasons Turkey is turning into such a problem in the current situation is that we've forced them to play by the rules in the past and this time they don't want to do so. But I'm wandering.

Seems to me there are a number of folks in the Arab world that wish bin ladin and his merry band of wackos would never have called down the wrath of the US during a Republican administration and are primarily concerned with finding OBL and whoever is supporting them, irradicating all of them (mostly including SH and his followers) and then getting the US back out of the region as quickly as possible...even if that means a couple of years. That being the case, don't be too surprised if we see more prisoners dying in US custody after having been turned over to our folks by our 'allies' from the arab world.

[faustulus]

If we need info to prevent attacks and save American lives. I am for the proper use of alternate interrogation methods.

That is scary if you truly believe that.
As a matter of fact if you think that maybe it is better if the terrorist win this war because they are correct in their assertion that America is hypocritical. We say we believe in one thing and do another.

Okay first off terrorists are not POWs they are captured enemy combatants.

Right and my AR-15 is an assualt weapon. I understand you are not necissarily supporting that position, but I am afraid some people may really by that BS.

It boils down to this, if we survive by limiting free speech, closing off government to public scrunity, invading our homes and privacy and torturing ANYONE, then Sept.11 really does mark the end of America. The terrorist won. The sad thing is we have helped them.
We allowed them to pass the patriot act. We are allowing our president to attack a soverign nation with NO links to the terrorists. We are letting our nation hold "secret trials" all in the name of "national security" I for one don't want to be that secure. If this is the world that is to follow I hope I don't live to see it.

[pax]

Faustulus,

Well spoken.

pax

The man who asks of freedom anything other than itself is born to be a slave. -- Alexis de Tocqueville

[Coltdriver]

See my prior post.

[boing]

But to forget the atrocities guarantees that you will be revisiting them.

And committing atrocities in the name of Freedom does what?

And what becomes of Freedom when American citizens are hauled away in the night, and tortured with your sanction?

What happens when they come for you?

[Coronach]

Stop!

Remember for a moment what the name of this forum is.

I highly suggest that this discussion gets on the high road right freakin now.

Debating the propriety of torture as an interrogation technique is one thing. It certainly is a discussion worth having.

High-fiving each other about how two of "them" died, seemingly under interrogation, or blithely asking "whats the problem?" is not a discussion that THR will condone. As free men we are each entitiled to our own opinion. However, such opinions will not be given voice on THR, using THR's bandwidth, under THR's name. Yes, this is a limit upon free speech. You signed up for that when you clicked the "I agree" button.

Gentlemen, continue.

Mike

[El Tejon]

The tremendous psychops victory that humane treatment of AQT and, soon, Iraqi prisoners would destroy the image that the subjects of Arab tyrants receive. Interrogate them, extract what we can. If they are pawns, let them go back to their villages with food and money.

Torture, or letting our "allies" torture these people, hurts us in the long run and destroys our ability to establish and operate human intelligence assets as we must to win the War on Terror. The emotionalism of "they have it coming" is self-defeating and irrational, just as all emotionalism is, see e.g. "for the children."

[seeker_two]

Debating the propriety of torture as an interrogation technique is one thing....High-fiving each other about how two of "them" died, seemingly under interrogation, or blithely asking "whats the problem?" is not a discussion that THR will condone...

"What, what, what? This better be about pizza!" Chief Wiggum, Springfield's head po-po.

Two statements....posted so close together....Coincidence? :scrutiny:

[jmbg29]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay first off terrorists are not POWs they are captured enemy combatants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right and my AR-15 is an assualt weapon. I understand you are not necissarily supporting that position, but I am afraid some people may really by that BS. Actually, the internationally agreed to rules of war are quite plain on this subject. They have been since 1864. You may look them up if you wish. Look under "Geneva Conventions".

For instance, an American <or fill in your favorite country of origin here> captured out of uniform in enemy territory may be summarily executed as a spy.

People abusing the emblems of the Red Cross, Red Crescent, etc. may suffer the same fate.

The parts of the Geneva Conventions that are applicable to soldiers being in uniform are there to protect civillian populations by making it difficult for combatants to blend seemlessly with the indigenous personnel.

Which is very bad news for death-cult nuts, the really aren't able to fight without a skirt, er... burka to hide behind, or a crib to crawl under.

Too bad. So sad.

Nice try though.
And "rules" and "war" are mutually exclusive terms to combatants.Coltdriver, see above.

You guys watch too many Oliver Stone movies. :rolleyes:

[Delmar]

Leaving some ticked off soldier who might have had buddies killed or wounded with a couple of captured terrorists might not be the hot ticket. Whether these captured people are soldiers or not, when or if it is decided they should be fertilizer should be considered by a military tribunal. Killing these people guarantees that any intel you might be able to get out of them is lost-and that information may well have saved some Joe Tentpeg out on patrol.
Just like a good boxer-emotions will get your tail beat in a fight. Doesn't mean I like the terrorists at all-I think they are worse than terrible, but they don't get to terrorize my country at will without getting their butts kicked nor are they going to turn me into one of them.

[ahadams]

jmbg29 - you are correct in that spys do not receive protection under the Geneva Convention - however since the Geneva convention is predicated on identifiable troops (how do you identify the good guys from the bad guys in places where there are no uniforms) it seems to me that the 'enemy combatants' category was something ginned up to give the US an out, so as not to have to execute same. I have nothing to back that up, but coming up with yet another legal category for POWs would otherwise seem self-defeating.

Pax, Dr. Jones, et al: this whole conversation is really odd. At one time I had to help teach a block on the Geneva and Hague conventions when I was in the army (yeah long, long ago, I know things change but) we almost never had anyone who didn't understand the moral, ethical, legal, and for that matter reliable intelligence related problems with torture. What has happened to this country over the last decade or so? Have we really lost that much of our collective soul? :confused:

[sonny]

I am amazed at ability of stories like this torture issue(true or false) to take on such importance.
It is, in my opinion, very crafty use of the media to bring down support of the USA's war effort.....Stories like this are clearly the weapons of choice for an enemy who has no chance against us on the battlefield.....I think this tactic is pathetic in a way but it may in fact prove very effective.

What am talking about?.....incidents like this torture case are mere cracks in our armour.....yea I said it and I'll say it again cracks in our armour.......How many prisinors are we holding and how many have died ......What would our enemies do to us in a similar situation?....am I suggesting that we do as our enemies do?...no...but I am suggesting that this standard that we are suposed to uphold is unrealistic and impossible.
Even with these 2 that died we are still the most compasionate nation that ever existed and will continue to be.

It's all about how the world will percieve us in the end and I am sick and tired of people looking at the mistakes we make rather than the good we do.....we are not perfect but in my opinion we are (more perfect) than we have to be.

Go ahead and make sense of that!

2 may or may not have died at the hands of US guards.
Thousands died on 9/11
I REMEMBER

[jmbg29]

how do you identify the good guys from the bad guys in places where there are no uniformsTry reading the treaty. It is all there in black and white. "Insignia visible at a distance" etc... Something as simple as an armband will suffice. They don't want to do it because they are cowards. So I say screw 'em!

I never had any problem wearing my uniform, but then again I wasn't planning to hide behind women and babies and/or crawl under a rock. it seems to me that the 'enemy combatants' category was something ginned up to give the US an out, so as not to have to execute same.See below I have nothing to back that upAgreed.

[12-34hom]

I don't care what kind of spin anyone wants to put on this subject.

Killing POW's or people held in captivity by U.S. forces while under interogation is wrong.

I remember 9-11 also - still don't make it right for this kind of actions to be taken by U.S forces. [if this story is true]. If true those accountable should be charged and tried in U.S. milatary court.

12-34hom.

[Waitone]

I'll refrain from exercising moral outrage until I've determined INDEPENDENT sources have verified the story AND that the timing and nature of death is clarified.

Another thought.

Classic example of the difference between cultures. While the west aspires to a higher standard, our immediate adversaries claim no such standards. Are we willing to exchange an increased body count for holding to our higher standards? What would our moral standards be if we wake up one morning and found AQ had detonate nukes in NY, DC, Chicago, and LA?

I for one hold to those higher standards. Modern psychological techniques are far more effective than a rubber hose in gathering information. I also believe Americans are human beings just like any other ethnic group. And being human means one is able to switch between savage and seminarian on a regularly basis. The more outrageous the behavior of the opposition the more likely our thin, flimsy veneer of civility will be peeled off revealing a really ugly monster. As a culture we have a strong moral code; we also have the technology to do some really bad things should or moral framework change.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Bush XLIII will be called upon to make moral decision the likes of which a president hasn't had to make since Truman.

[pax]

You know, one of the really ironic parts of this whole thing? One of the reasons we are going into Iraq is that Hussein does things like this to people.

pax

I did not! And besides, he did it too! -- pax's first born son, age 5

[sonny]

12-34hom.............

I remember 9-11 also - still don't make it right for this kind of actions to be taken by U.S forces. [if this story is true]. If true those accountable should be charged and tried in U.S. milatary court.

I agree

[sonny]

Waitone,
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Bush XLIII will be called upon to make moral decision the likes of which a president hasn't had to make since Truman.
I think you may be right ....lets hope he and we make the right one.

[DeltaElite]

I do condone doing what is necessary to protect our people, if that entails alternate interrogation methods, so be it.
As I said, psyops can get intel without the use of physical force, leaving physical force as a primitive and ineffective technique.

It is far more important to me to prevent additional terrorist attacks, than to appease the international community and those who are concerned with the welfare of our enemies.

To some the horrors of 9/11 are just videotape, to some of us it is much more. It is smells, sounds, screams and tears.
For some it is just a TV show, but that is the curse for those of us who respond to the dead and dying, we take it very personally.
I buried a friend who transferred to NYPD and died in the WTC, so I take it very personally.

[sonny]

DeltaElite,
To some the horrors of 9/11 are just videotape, to some of us it is much more. It is smells, sounds, screams and tears.

I am one of those you speak of......and when I mention it I often get negative .....Poor baby:( ......comments.
It frustrates me because mentioning it is a form of a battle cry for me, my family, friends and co workers (we built those towers) and too often I am met with blank stares and pacifism.

Someone said in another thread that if somebody was trying to kill their children they would not want to be held responsible for what they may do to their enemies....that thought resinates
:fire:

[DeltaElite]

Sonny,
I wasn't there in the flesh, but I was in spirit and heart.
I have watched people die, heard the screams, smelled the smells and cried the tears. I have buried three partners and had people try to kill me. I have a different perspective on life than most. One tempered by pain, misery and reality.
Hang in there, some of us know what it is like and others don't, but are happy to tell us what we should think.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know it is an ad hom attack, but here goes.

For some life is theory, for others it is reality.
Most of the policy makers and those critical of a warriors methods, live their life in the theoretical world, not the real one.

[pax]

It is far more important to me to prevent additional terrorist attacks, than to appease the international community and those who are concerned with the welfare of our enemies.
DeltaElite,

You know better.

I don't give a pitcher of warm spit for the opinions of the "international community" and I'm not a bit concerned with the welfare of our enemies. They are our enemies, after all.

Nor have I forgotten the evils of 9/11, nor do I want to "go easy" on the folks who did the foul deed. They should burn in hell for all eternity.

I doubt there is anyone on this board who doesn't feel the same way.

ahadams,

I'm afraid the answer to your question is, "yes." But keep in mind, you did have to teach the classes -- right? Civilized behaviour must be taught. It doesn't come naturally to most people.

pax

You cannot teach a crab to walk straight. -- Aristophanes

[DeltaElite]

Pax,
No, I don't know better.
I can only attempt to understand the words as they are written, using my limited intelligence of course. ;)
I do see where you stand, "a warm pitcher of spit" clarifies that extremely well. :D

-----------------------------------------------------------
It seems that some people are hung up on piety and theory, rather than the ugly reality of what may have to be done to prevent another attack.

I have watched this nations resolve on pursuing terrorists fade steadily over the last 18 months.
So no, I don't know better.
I see, what I feel, are people forgetting and moving back into their comfy lives.
I may be wrong, I hope I am, but I am doubtful that I am.

[sonny]

DeltaElite.......thanks for understanding....it actually means alot.

[faustulus]

jmbg29

We can argue semantics all day about POW vs. enemy combatant. Wrong is wrong. And if we do torture, if we do anything in the name of revenge, then the terrorists have won. See I am willing to scarifice 30,000 or 30 million so long as we don't become the monsters they are. All they can do is kill me, only I can give up my soul. Same with America, they can kill us, but we can destroy the freedom and justice our country stands for.

Someone has already made the point about the lack of uniforms, you don't agree and that is where we will just have to not see eye to eye.

Waitone,

Are we willing to exchange an increased body count for holding to our higher standards?

yep

What would our moral standards be if we wake up one morning and found AQ had detonate nukes in NY, DC, Chicago, and LA?

Maybe I am alone in this but morality is more important than life. See I think the life that comes next is more important and all they can do is kill me. A wise man once saidL: what profit has a man who gains the entire world but loses his immortal soul?

DeltaElite,

I do condone doing what is necessary to protect our people, if that entails alternate interrogation methods, so be it.

I fear for our country if most people think as you do.

Very little can be done in a free society to prevent harm. You have to make a decision. Is it more important to you to be moral and free or is it more important to be secure?

What is the difference in the arguement that we should do ANYTHING to prevent anonther attack and the arguement the anti's use that we should do ANYTHING to prevent another shooting?

When in this country did life mean so much as to abandon any morality just to continue living?

[Baba Louie]

faustulus,

Probably came about when the first settlers were wiped out without a trace 'cause the indigenous people didn't want them here?

Maybe?

Doesn't mean its right or anything, just a reality.

Ya don't see too many of the locals (pre-white man) wandering around anymore do ya?

Morally reprehensible by todays standards, granted. Sad, anthropologically, to be a resultant of a genocide's victor, which I am.

But I do remember Sept 11, 01, just staring at the TV and thinking "the payback's gonna be a ..." Well, it won't be pretty.

And its not... is it?

Adios

[jmbg29]

Someone has already made the point about the lack of uniforms, you don't agree and that is where we will just have to not see eye to eye.My position on the torture/killing is that it remains to be seen who is responsible for it. I didn't condone it.

Your position has been that we must follow the rules. Fair enough. We have well established rules (over 139 years old) that constitute what a lawful combatant is. Guess you only want to follow the rules that you agree with.

[Drjones]

First, I want to say that I don't necessarily believe that our people actually did torture others.

As has been said, that remains to be seen.

However, this has turned into a thread debating the morality of torture, and that is how I posted initially, and how I now continue.

That said:

I fear for our country if most people think as you do.

Very little can be done in a free society to prevent harm. You have to make a decision. Is it more important to you to be moral and free or is it more important to be secure?

What is the difference in the arguement that we should do ANYTHING to prevent anonther attack and the arguement the anti's use that we should do ANYTHING to prevent another shooting?

When in this country did life mean so much as to abandon any morality just to continue living?

Ditto 100%

I too am afraid if most people would in fact condone torture.

If you do condone torture, you cannot say that you are any better than those who planned and executed 9/11.

[faustulus]

Probably came about when the first settlers were wiped out without a trace 'cause the indigenous people didn't want them here?
Other natives helped settlers survive the first winter here. The Plymouth colony would never have been established without the natives.
As a matter of fact you will find more instances of natives helping than harming. There was a time where freedom was the most important ideal, or at least we said that was the case.

jmbg29,

Your position has been that we must follow the rules
Close, My position is that we must to what is morally right, not legally. If we pass a law saying torture is okay for arab men, then we would be following the rules. But it doesn't make it right. When you capture a man in combat, he should be treated humanely. I don't care what he is wearing. Murdering people because of the clothes they are wearing is immoral regardless of what the rules say. Think of them as a minimum set of standards, we should aspire to more.
The problem is there is no internationally agreed upon definition for "enemy combatant" therefore we are lawyering our way out of a situation. We are making a semantic arguement. Lets be clear it is a duck. it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it has feathers and webbed feet like a duck. ...

If you do condone torture, you cannot say that you are any better than those who planned and executed 9/11.

Finally a point Drjones and I can agree! :)

[trapshooter]

First, a couple of stipulations.

1. The concept "Innocent until proven guilty" applies in this case, as in others. News reports are just 'reports', after all.

2. The use of "torture" (which is a variable concept, depending on which side of the lamp you are on) is generally not an effective technique for garnering useful information, as the subject will generally tell you whatever you want to hear to stop the pain.

With those two stipulations in mind, I assert that this is a circular argument, espousing a loop from the "no torture under any circumstances" to the "whatever it takes" extremes. I also assert that both (and everything in between) are correct, depending on the situation.

Before this sets off another verbal war, I'll explain. I can easily come up with numerous examples of situations where torture is neither legally nor morally justifiable. I can also conceive circumstances where almost anything would be ok, in my mind, at least morally, and probably legally, too. These examples (torture ok) are, thankfully, far less numerous and unlikely, but still possible, at least academically.

Although I generally dislike "what if's", here's one where I don't expect to get much disagreement, at least in theory. (A nice terrorist play). For the purpose of the argument, you find yourself in a room on the 50th floor of a building in a major US city with a 'low-yield' nuclear weapon on a timer that is running, with the person who placed it and set the timer in custody. The timer is ticking down from the ten-minute mark, and you have no assistance. The NEST team is twenty minutes out, and evacuation is not possible. You can see the multiple mercury motion switches in the timer mechanism preventing gross movement, so relocation of the weapon is not immediately possible. ARE you going to limit your possible interrogation techniques to offering the suspect tea and cookies? I know I wouldn't.

Let's take another, more likely shot.You find a kidnapping suspect who says he has buried the kidnappee, and there is a possibility that if you act fast, the air won't run out and the victim can be rescued. The suspect is taunting you with this 'fact', but refuses to talk, in spite of your offering free coffee, doughnuts, and cigarettes (or whatever). Are you going to 'cross lines', or just keep on being 'moral'?

Admittedly, these are extreme and unlikely situations. I use them to illustrate, however, that there are potential situations where I not only would disregard methods and focus only on the results, but would actively advocate a 'whatever it takes' approach, using the 'greater good' philosophy. They also illustrate that, at least on the 'bad' end, extreme circumstances make some otherwise intolerable acts tolerable, assuming the immediacy argument.

Just my opinion.

[seeker_two]

Let's take another, more likely shot.You find a kidnapping suspect who says he has buried the kidnappee, and there is a possibility that if you act fast, the air won't run out and the victim can be rescued. The suspect is taunting you with this 'fact', but refuses to talk, in spite of your offering free coffee, doughnuts, and cigarettes (or whatever). Are you going to 'cross lines', or just keep on being 'moral'?

This is where you ask..."What Would Dirty Harry Do?"...:evil:

[jmbg29]

Murdering people because of the clothes they are wearing is immoral regardless of what the rules say.Once again let me remind you that I said nothing about murder, other than to say that the facts about these two in particular have yet to come to light. The problem is there is no internationally agreed upon definition for "enemy combatant" therefore we are lawyering our way out of a situation."B.S." as you are fond of saying. The definition is age old. Even before the first Geneva Convention was signed in 1864 enemy combatants were defined. Ever hear of a rather obscure portion of the U.S. Constitution that refers to "Letters of Marque and Reprisal?!? Know what it's there for?!? It's there because people "privateering" (fighting as a volunteer military force for a government) needed those documents in order to avoid the hangman's noose AS PIRATES. We are making a semantic arguement(sic).No we aren't. We're playing the old "if it's not done in a purely idealist fashion, I am going to criticize it as wrong" game. I hate to break your heart, but the rest of us (the ones that do the actual fighting/killing/etc. figured all of this stuff out long ago. Some rats don't like the rules and they come to the battlefield in clothes that blend in with those who are innocent, and you still expect that those who must hunt them and kill them - without killing a single innocent - are going to treat said rats with the same honor and respect as a man that had the dignity and courage to come to the field with honor. Ain't gonna happen. The Sun will burn out of the sky before it ever does.

If I'm wrong, and the folks that actually do the fighting say "Gee, we really should do this stuff according to the 'Faustulus Moral Code' method." I'll be sure to let you know.

In the meanwhile, you are out of your depth.

:rolleyes: :uhoh: :barf:

[faustulus]

jmbg29,

First off I am not saying that these men were tortured or were not, only that to do so would be immoral and base.
You seem to think ideals and morality have no place in the world or that they should be set aside to accomplish a task. I cannot agree with this.
Remember Nietzsche’s warning.
In your world we are justified in becoming monsters to maintain our lives. And I understand your position. However, I may be an idealist but I at least I am willing to die with a clear conscious.
You keep harping on about the real world and implying that we must do terrible things in the name of whatever the government decides is the war of the week. Winning is not the most important thing. If we win, but become the hypocritical nation our enemies accuse us of being, where is the victory?
It is like the choice that trapshooter poised. Do we do whatever it takes to save lives or do we hold to our ideals no matter what the consequences?
Since you are so familiar with the history of enemy combatants you understand that the term has never been applied to a soldier. It has exclusively been used for spies, something no one has suggested any of the Taliban were.
Think in terms of the French resistance during WWII. These men were soldiers and fought the enemy the way they could. The Germans of course called them spies and saboteurs. We called them heroes.
Lastly we are having a friendly discussion here and I don’t appreciate snide comments, you may take issue with my position but you don’t know me from Adam and there is no reason to take swipes at me, nor anyone else posting here. There is no reason not to be civil.

[LawDog]

Whosoever would fight monsters must take care that in the process he does not become one. For when you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks also into you.
--Friedrich Nietzche

LawDog

[Sean Smith]

Only thing I'd add here is to consider the source of the "information," which has proven to be consistently bogus in the past.

[Cosmoline]

Under interrogation by whom? THe reporter doesn't say, which makes me wonder. Certainly if US employees did this, heads need to roll. There's no excuse for killing in these circumstances. Even if they are using torture, and even if it was somehow justified, actually killing the subject is a failure of that method and must be punished. Somehow I doubt our guys would have been beating anyone like that. Electroshock combined with powerful drugs is far more likely. If this happened, my guess is it was done by locals having some fun with their enemies.

[CMichael]

My opinion is that if we are against another army, where we are fighting lawful combatants we should not use torture.

If we are going after unlawful combatants that target civilians then we have a lot more leeway to extract information.

[DeltaElite]

I fear for this country due to people who are not willing to do what is necessary in order to win and to prevent the deaths of innocents. Yet they live under the protection of those who are willing to do what it takes.

Hide behind your piety all you want, but if you are willing to sacrifice your fellow countrymen, friends, family and children to protect the rights of terrorists, then you are lost in a world of fantasy and your opinion is being logged accordingly. :D

None of what I am saying applies to domestic issues or US citizens, I am referring to terrorists from foreign countries.
So inferring that my mentality is applicable by me to the 2A is not correct.
Even terrorists from the US are protected by the BoR, IMHO.

No where have I condoned physical torture or the killing of prisoners, but I am not shedding a tear if it happens, they are the enemy.
Indeed physical torture is a poor method of obtaining reliable information and even psyops and chemical methods have their reliability issues.

Like I said earlier, for some life is theory for others it is reality, where you fall is up to you.

[DeltaElite]

Dohhhhhhh, double tap. :(

[DeltaElite]

Let's take another, more likely shot.You find a kidnapping suspect who says he has buried the kidnappee, and there is a possibility that if you act fast, the air won't run out and the victim can be rescued. The suspect is taunting you with this 'fact', but refuses to talk, in spite of your offering free coffee, doughnuts, and cigarettes (or whatever). Are you going to 'cross lines', or just keep on being 'moral'?

Hmmmm, I think Harry said, "I'm all broken up about that mans rights".

That is the problem with speaking in absolutes, there are no absolutes in life.

[pax]

DeltaElite,

Killing the enemy is fine.

Torture is not.

Killing off of the field of battle should be hedged about with rigid and inflexible rules -- lest our soldiers lose their sense of humanity and become unfit to return to civilization when their tour of duty is over.

As for 'hiding behind piety,' that's a facile accusation amounting to an ad hominem. Ad homs, of course, do not build a valid construction. But you knew that.

A question for you: Do you believe the BoR grants rights which humans did not have prior to its writing? Or does it recognize rights which existed before it was penned? Whatever your answer, think through its implications as it applies to this thread and to the morality of torture.

pax

The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. -- Joseph Joubert

[DeltaElite]

Pax,
I believe the BoR recognizes the rights of all humans.

I don't believe the BoR extends to terrorists and their ilk.
I guess I am no better than the terrorist according to some, but I can live with that.
I will not sacrifice US citizens just to preserve the rights of foriegn terrorists.
I value the lives of US citizens far more than I do that of terrorists and I would rather see a million terrorists killed than one US citizen.
I will not apologize for being willing to do what it takes to defend my fellow citizens, anymore than I would have apologized for assassinating Adlof Hitler in 1939 Germany, if I were around to have done so.

I know people will disagree and think me a monsters, but oh well. ;)

Oh and before the allegation that I am unfit to be a cop and mistreat my prisoners flies off of someones keyboard, I am not.
I follow the rules of the game and the "legal system" is a game that is perpetrated upon us all.
I have personal views, but I do not allow them to cloud my professional judgement or convince me to act outside of the rule of law that our "legal system" says we live under.

------------------------------------------------------------
FWIW, I would have sacrificed my life in a heartbeat to prevent 9/11 or a future attack of such magnitude.
Of course with my mindset, I believe that I would have lived and sacrificed the terrorists lives instead, but that is part of my mentality.
I always know I will win, no matter what it takes and if I lose, then I am probably dead as a result.
I decided long ago, that I was willing to risk my life and possibly die to protect my fellow citizens, I have done this as a firefighter/paramedic and as a cop for 20 years now and I will do it for at least another 10 more before I can retire and play with my family full time.

Ain't this a fun discussion. :D

[Baba Louie]

Killing the enemy is fine.

Torture is not.

Hmmmmm.

Killing the enemy how? Bombs strapped to kids to blow up non-combatants? Airplanes or truck (bombs) driven by religious zealots into buildings containing non-combatants? I don't think thats fine but thats one groups take on a method of "Killing the Enemy"

This is not a clean war. Show me one that really is (all the time).
But all of the above are examples of "Killing the enemy (which is fine)"
-yet-
slow painful extraction of information to stop the, as we have been told, "Killing of the enemy (which is fine)"... is not.

Interesting.

Do the means justify the ends?

Are you really worried about our boys coming home and using these same methods on their neighbors and friends? Probably not. Those men are the tip of the spear of our war machine. They will see and do things unimaginable to Mammy and Pappy Yokum back in Tusslebug USA. They'll have the nightmares so I can sleep at night. Pretty damn sad for them and their families, huh?

Some WILL go over the line. When caught, they will be crucified, even tho' we sent them there to stop someone else from "Killing the enemy (which is us, and to them, that's fine)"

Do the means justify the ends?

An age old question.

If you are the victor... maybe.

If the information recovered saves just one soldiers life... is it worth it?

Yep.

Are you the judge? Am I? Am I even capable of passing judgement, real honest to God, this is it and we mean it judgement?

Please name one war, in which our troops fought, where American prisoners of war were treated in a manner you or I would say is humane. Compare that to the manner we treated our POW's, on the whole.

Yes, we expect only Eagle Scouts in our uniforms, no we don't want to sink as low as, say, the Japanese '37-'45, NK '50-'53, VC/NVA '65-'75...maybe its a Christian European WASP thing.

Whoever did, whatever they did, that resulted in two enemy/terrorist deaths will most certainly be brought in front of some captains mast or Courts Martial, once the evidence is weighed.

No need to lose any sleep over the dead now. Their problems are over.

Do the means...?

Adios

[faustulus]

Yet they live under the protection of those who are willing to do what it takes.

If my death will stop them I will happily lay down my life.

Hide behind your piety all you want, but if you are willing to sacrifice your fellow countrymen, friends, family and children to protect the rights of terrorists, then you are lost in a world of fantasy and your opinion is being logged accordingly.

Piety is the word I would choose, I am a Christian and I try to live by the teachings of Christ. I am concerned about the hearafter more than the here.
That is the problem with speaking in absolutes, there are no absolutes in life.
:)

None of what I am saying applies to domestic issues or US citizens, I am referring to terrorists from foreign countries.

Then you are outraged at the treatment of Jose Padilla.

Ain't this a fun discussion. Agreed

[jmbg29]

Lastly we are having a friendly discussion here and I don’t appreciate snide comments, you may take issue with my position but you don’t know me from Adam and there is no reason to take swipes at me, nor anyone else posting here. There is no reason not to be civil.You made assertions that were patently false. I cited several documents i.e. The Geneva Convention(s) and our own Constitution. I'm still waiting for you to cite something substantive.Since you are so familiar with the history of enemy combatants you understand that the term has never been applied to a soldier. It has exclusively been used for spies, something no one has suggested any of the Taliban were.Wrong again! Combatants that find themselves in enemy held or taken territory, need to be in uniform. It doesn't matter one wit whether they knew that or not. Perhaps their fearless leaders should have warned them of that little detail before throwing them into a fight with the big dogs.

When I said that you were out of your depth, I meant every word of it, and I stand by it.

There are rules and traditions in warfare. Perhaps you don't like them. That would be your problem, not mine.

When you spoke of the glorious "French Resistance" I thought I felt a tear form at the corner of my eye. I realized that it was there because I was laughing so hard. Thank you for the perfect historical example of what I'm talking about.

Had the French any honor at all, they would have fought as men in uniform. Instead the rolled over like a Suzuki Samurai. Then they had a paltry few smugglers and assorted criminals pull a few fast ones on, or for the Krauts, or the English, or the Americans, or whomever could buy their loyalty for that moment.

Long story short, any of them captured in Nazi occupied Vichy France were summarily dealt with. And since they were not in uniform, there wasn't thing one that anyone could do about it. In your world we are justified in becoming monsters to maintain our lives.I submit that it is you that believe that we are justified in becoming monsters by suggesting that we allow the cowards a way out.

The rules regarding uniform requirements are designed to save innocent life. They are meant to dissuade combatants from adopting the local manner of dress in order to "blend in" with non-combatants. And while it is true that the Taliban et al. don't understand why they shouldn't hide behind children when they open fire, that ignorance on their part does not constitute grounds for an excuse on our part.

Ever wonder why our airmen/soldiers/ marines/ sailors that are rescued are still in uniform? It is because they have courage. They are proud. They actually do things that may cause them harm in order to protect and preserve innocent life.

Your views are your own business, but if you wish to accuse Americans of things that they haven't done, or as yet been found guilty of, you better have something other than your feelings, or quotes from a vastly overated German philosopher to back them up.

Things like international treaties regarding conduct in warfare for instance.

[DeltaElite]

Then you are outraged at the treatment of Jose Padilla.

I am not outraged, I reserve outrage for more significant events, such as 9/11. Not the arrest of a treasonous coward.
Jose Padilla is a US citizen, but when he became a supporter of foriegn terrorists, he gave up his citizenship in my mind. Along with the Buffalo terrorist cell they busted.
He should be officially stripped of his US citizenship and dealt with accordingly.
When you work with the enemy, you are no longer a countryman of mine and have forfeited the protections of US citizenship, IMHO.

[Derek Zeanah]

When you work with the enemy, you are no longer a countryman of mine and have forfeited the protections of US citizenship, IMHO.I understand your point of view, but disagree with it for (mostly) the following reason:

Who gets to determine which people to treat as "terrorists" or "enemy combatants?" The answer will translate to "anyone accused of this class of crime forfeits their civil rights immediately." No right to a speedy trial, no right to council, no right to face their accusers, or know the charges against them, or ...

You get a situation where you can have people disappearing off the street, and the response from the authorities can be "we suspect him of being a terrorist. Why? Were you close friends with the accused? Lemme see your drivers' license, lady!"

When, exactly, does someone forfeit their "God-given" rights, which our law recognizes as you stated above? Is it as soon as a government agent levels an accusation, or after conviction of a crime? If an accusation is enough, can you visualize any ways that power could be abused that would simply destroy the Republic? If not now, than under a future Clinton/Schumer administration?

These are the questions we ought to be asking.

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

It seems to boil down to what Baba Louie wrote.


Do the ends justify the means used to achieve them?

For us as Americans, we're dealing with a what amounts to a new situation. Terrorists are not on our previous experience list to any great degree.

We can define 9/11 as an act of war, but doing so does not negate 9/11's role as an act of terror. That is the crux of the issue, I think.

9/11 as an act of war is something we have done to try and get a handle on the situation, an attempt to control events on our terms. It allows us to focus the enormous might of the military with complete justification, and also makes room for military solutions. Solutions of this sort are of the "bigger hammer" variety, involving bombs, troops, collateral damage, infrastructure and basic resource destruction, lots of somewhat indiscriminate death from a distance, and things of that ilk. Military operations happen on a large scale, and involve re-shaping/destroying structures, be they physical or cultural, on a national level. This is where you get concepts like regime changing and fundamental government rebuilding as goals. Cultural changes installed at this point are designed to facilitate placement and maintenance of the new system on the conquered populace. This is to ensure that we don't have to do this twice, as war is an expensive undertaking. This somewhat idealized conclusion is what we are trying to achieve in Afganistan.

This is the high-moral-ground solution. In the process we try to minimize collateral damage, not slaughter non-combatants, only attack military targets and objectives, and only destroy infrastructural resources (Like water supplies.) if we absolutely must. This solution has no room in it for torture in any sense. It is based purely on bare neccessity, with a government's impersonal influence on decisions. This is how a "civilised", modern society is supposed to protect itself, in an ideal world. Unfortunately, there's the other part to consider.

9/11 was ultimately an act of terror. It didn't take out a military or infrastructural entity, nor was there any follow-up or long-term plan. It was perpetrated by religious fanatics to achieve a fanatical result, which could be defined as casting an emotional influence over our entire society's thinking proccess. It is an attempt to install a permanent component of fear, of emotionally-driven irrationality, in order to re-shape our version of civilization. the stronger the emotional influence, the more successful the fanatical attack. This definition attaches a different significance to torture as a means of furthering a solution in addition to entirely re-defining what the solution ultimately resolves into for us as a nation.

It was an act of terror. It conjures up rage, fear, desire for revenge, self-righteous satisfaction and emotionally-driven pontification and justification. These kinds of changes are not usually beneficial to a society. Pervasive irrationality is erosive to civilisation as an institution and disruptive to long-term planning and national success. If we as a society are willing to condone torture as an accepted methodology where before it was viewed as totally unacceptable, it serves as a symptom indicating that the terrorists have succeeded in reshaping our society. By giving in to our righteous indignation and anger, we are taking a step further away from our own professed goals of national evolution. America has always been the good guys. Our nation strives for equality and freedom, lofty ideas that require us to treat all people, even ones that behave barbarically, as people. If we compromise our ideals by instead treating all people (For where do you draw the line?) as barbarians, to the hubris that grievous injury can absolve responsibility for the application of standards that by our own admission we find intolerable, that then legitimizes the fanatic's influence, and gives the attack a level of credibility that we as a society should refuse to endorse. We should not allow our anger and grief to diminish our standards of humanity. America has always embodied a higher expectation of acceptable behavior towards others, both individually and institutionally. It's part and parcel to the basic pricipals this country was founded on. To compromise our standards, and condone a backwards step on the behavioral ladder of civility is to give Victory to the terrorists. Individual cases of irrational fanaticism should not be able to influence us as a whole. It's hard to regard torture as any kind of achievement.


On a personal level, don't get me wrong, here. I'm not saying that feelings of anger, outrage, pain and grief are wrong or unjustified. I can completely identify with a desire to feed any given captured terrorist into an arc furnace, slowly. I have the same or very similar responses to a lot of the things stated on this thread. But I also have a deep and pervading distrust of emotionally-driven thinking, and I try to think about things more than once, with a firm grip on my feelings so I can prevent or at least recognize and dismiss emotional influences that I consider detrimental. Self-righteous petty vindictiveness does not become us on The High Road, or as a nation. We should stand together, shoulder-to-shoulder, and show the world the standard by which we judge civilisation. I think it might be time for a little "cultural surgery", deftly applied in the form of high explosives. :evil:

[jmbg29]

9/11 was ultimately an act of terror. It didn't take out a military or infrastructural entity, nor was there any follow-up or long-term plan.Exactly what do Kommiefornians consider the Pentagon to be? :rolleyes: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire:

[Waitone]

So does this mean we will engage in another form of asymetric warfare? Does it mean Islamofascist terrorists are permitted to attack population centers, destroy buildings, collapse cities, blow up schools and generally wage war on non-combatants while our government (the entity constituted by our social contract) fights the eneny with lawyers?

They shoot, we file briefs.

They bomb, they object.

They kill, we imprison.

They destroy, we interrogate.

Perhaps the most effective weapon Islamofascist terrorists have is our our confusion of ethics with legality. Somehow I think we forget that ethics and legality are not synonomous.

[SoDFW Jason]

Can't we just go get two more to replace them? What's the big deal? Geez.

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

jmbg29-

MEA CULPA!

Brainfade. Got a pic on my desktop of a plane disappearing into a Tower face.

Managed to compartmentalize my visual thinking around just the Towers while considering the WHOLE attack of all four planes the "singular isolated incident".

NOT a deliberate attempt to lessen or detract from any of the other attacks. Just didn't convey that in the writing. An accident. Please excuse my lack of clarity.

Deep thoughts about motivations/reactions/mentations, to the exclusion of the details of the actual events.

So, I apologize for any misunderstanding. Not trying to make anybody mad here!

Better?

[DeltaElite]

That is the problem Derek.
Who does decide such things.

[jmbg29]

NOT a deliberate attempt to lessen or detract from any of the other attacks. Just didn't convey that in the writing. An accident. Please excuse my lack of clarity.
No problem.Deep thoughts about motivations/reactions/mentations, to the exclusion of the details of the actual events. At least you are thinking about it. Many of our countrymen seem to have forgotten already. So, I apologize for any misunderstanding. Not trying to make anybody mad here! No problem here either. It's just that this subject really gets my blood up.Better?Much.

The news media has played down the ultimate goal of Islamic radicals for as long as I have been alive. So I shouldn't be surprised when people just don't get the big picture.

Most people think that terrorism revolves around the fight over Jerusalem or Israel or Palestine or the Middle East.

They couldn't be more wrong.

The resolution of the Palestine/Israel deal has ZERO to to do with the death-cult nuts in the Phillipines/Pakistan/Trashcanistan/India etc...

Their goal is now, and always has been, to establish a worldwide theocracy. Nothing more, nothing less.

"The first thing I am calling you to is Islam." Osama bin Laden

What they did, and are doing now, is war.

What they recieve in return will be HELL!

[fallingblock]

Bing!-Bing!-Bing!
You win the clarity and focus prize:D

Why (rhetorical, of course we know why) cannot the mass of people see what is at work here? Religion is being used as a motivator for the angry/militant faction of this large segment of the world's population which, until relatively recently has been locked away in the 12th Century. This violent faction has found devotees, funding, weaponry and most significantly, organization.

Worldwide Theocracy...or as much as they can conquer, like back in the glory days of Islam.:uhoh:

[griz]

This is for the end justifies the means crowd.

If it’s OK to torture somebody to save "us", then you are saying it’s morally justified. In that case "they" are just as justified in performing their atrocities since they are also defending "their own".

So which is it? Are you saying torture is morally neutral like war? Or are you saying immoral acts are OK?

PS I consider torture a form of terrorism, which neatly ties in to the irony to which Pax refers.

[faustulus]

jmbg29

You made assertions that were patently false. I cited several documents i.e. The Geneva Convention(s) and our own Constitution. I'm still waiting for you to cite something substantive.

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U. S. 2 (1866): Grew out of military restrictions on civil liberties in the North during the Civil War.
Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1 (1942): President Franklin D. Roosevelt established a military commission to try German saboteurs during World War II.
Cramer v. United States, 325 U. S. 1 (1945): A naturalized citizen was charged with treason for giving aid and comfort to the enemy during World War II.
In re Yama****a, 327 U. S. 1 (1946): A World War II era case involving the command responsibility doctrine in review of the conviction of a Japanese commander in the Philippines by an American military tribunal.
Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U. S. 304 (1946): Concerned with Japanese exclusion, the case considered wartime curtailment of fundamental civil liberties by military authority.
Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763 (1950): German nationals were confined in the custody of the United States Army following their conviction by a military commission for engaging in military activity against the United States.
Madsen v. Kinsella, 343 U. S. 341 (1952): The Court ruled that a civilian committing a crime could be prosecuted by a military tribunal.

Those are a list of SCOTUS cases on "enemy combatants. Please find one that deals with something other than spying.

When I said that you were out of your depth, I meant every word of it, and I stand by it.
Where did you recieve your international law degree? Because without it we are both laymen.

I submit that it is you that believe that we are justified in becoming monsters by suggesting that we allow the cowards a way out.

It takes more courage not to fight.

Had the French any honor at all, they would have fought as men in uniform. Instead the rolled over like a Suzuki Samurai.

Moore, Bob, ed. Resistance in Western Europe. Oxford and New York: Berg, 2000,.

Liebling, A.J., and E.J. Sheffer. La Republique to Silence: The Story of French Resistance. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1946.

Knight, Frida. The French Resistance, 1940-1944. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1975.

They can explain better what the resistance fighters did than I can. And rules or no rules killing someone for being a spy is morally wrong.

while it is true that the Taliban et al. don't understand why they shouldn't hide behind children when they open fire, that ignorance on their part does not constitute grounds for an excuse on our part.

Odd that you should say Taliban, In an April 11 2002 report to congress, Jennifer Elsea Legislative Attorney for the American Law Division said that President Bush considers the Taliban fighters to be POWs.

You made assertions that were patently false.

Most of my statements have been about morality and it is impossible for them to be false because they are opinion. You however have been making broad and over reaching statements without attribution on legal matters and saying they are the voice of God.

Your views are your own business, but if you wish to accuse Americans of things that they haven't done, or as yet been found guilty of

I haven't accused anyone of anything. I simply took the position that it is morally wrong to torture and kill. Your opinions of Nietzsche or any other philosopher don't concern me.

And if anyone is using feelings in this it is you. I can understand that you are emotional over the situation but be warned these tatics if used against our enemy will one day be used against Americans by our own government. I don't need a German or Jewish philosopher or a legal book to tell me that, just look at history. I would love to continue this but we are clearly worlds apart and niether is likly to change our minds, but more importnatnly you sir are rude and I feel if I keep writing I will only say somethig I will later regret.

DE,

That is the problem Derek. Who does decide such things.

They do, those that are in power. If Clinton would have thought of it Randy Weaver and probably some radio show hosts would fall in that catagory.

Adieu

[jmbg29]

Johnson v. Eisentrager
339 U.S. 763 (1950)

The United States Supreme Court held that the federal Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or immunity from military trial and punishment on alien enemies engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States. The "aliens" concerned were German Nationals who were confined in the custody of the United States Army in Germany following their conviction y a military commission of having engaged in military activity against the United States in China after the surrender of Germany. The Court stated that the military authorities have a jurisdiction, during or following "hostilities" to punish those guilty of offenses against the laws of war, and the German Nationals did not have the right to a writ of habeas corpus.


Thanks for proving my point for me. You are correct on one point though, we're done.

[Nazgul]

Let's see, this is not a legally declared war as the libs say so how can it be war crimes? Too bad, beat them, starve them, cause them pain, do what is necessary to get the job done. I would not expect kind behavior if I was captured by them.

Look at your children or grandchildren and realize that these scum want them dead. Puts it into perspective for me.