Torture - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Medmech · #61 10-19-2007, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Have you read all of that?

Tom W

Only for the last three years.

t walgamuth · #62 10-19-2007, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Lincoln ordered the military to round-up and jail newspaper editors, publishers, and reporters. Lincoln had people jailed without trial in defiance of habeas corpus pleas. Lincoln had one member of Congress forcibly deported from the USA under threat of jail.

FDR established a tribunal for the single purpose of trying and executing German commandoes who landed on the East coast with sabotage plans. They were tried and executed. FDR established concentration camps for American citizens of Japanese descent. Most were held in the concentration camps until after the war's end.

The current administration has jailed 2 American citizens (IIRC) on US soil as enemy combatants but did not suspend habeas corpus and when ordered by the courts (after following the legal appeal process) to charge or release the accused, charged them with crimes. (I think they were both convicted, but I'm not certain.) The enemy combatants held at GTMO are not American citizens nor are they enemy combatants under the Geneva Conventions nor are they on American soil.

Thus far, no substantial evidence has been produced to indicate any physical torture ordered by anybody in the chain of command has occurred. allegations of mistreatment include keeping prisoners awake using various means such as loud music or forcing the enemy combatant to assume uncomfortable positions for periods of time. Psychological stress is commonly employed including verbal harassment and 'water-boarding'. All of the above treatment is routinely administered by American military and clandestine services ON EACH OTHER as part of their training.

I'm not sure whether Al Qaeda's prisoner treatment has undergone the same scrutiny. Folks who have investigated it have a pattern of turning-up dead. But it's probably moot since most of their prisoners are beheaded on camera.

B

Lincoln's situation was completely different. It was dealing with a civil uprising. The folks deported were southern sympathisers who could have rightly been charged with treason and hung.

I am wondering what you think is wrong with executing the German
commando's?

The treatment of Japanese Americans was not our best moment.

The fear of Japanese deviousity was responsible for increasing american loss of planes on the ground on December 7, when the Japanese attacked, as they were parked wing to wing so they would be more easily guarded from Japanese sabatours (sp?), rendering them much more easy to take out with a strafing run.

And finally you have used all of the current administrations public pronouncements to defend their actions.

Tom W

t walgamuth · #63 10-19-2007, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howitzer

Only for the last three years.

All of it?

Tom W

Botnst · #64 10-20-2007, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Lincoln's situation was completely different. It was dealing with a civil uprising. The folks deported were southern sympathisers who could have rightly been charged with treason and hung.

I am wondering what you think is wrong with executing the German
commando's?
...
And finally you have used all of the current administrations public pronouncements to defend their actions.

Tom W

Excusing Lincoln's illegal activities because of his situation is no different from excusing Bush for his. It depends on how one perceives the threat that initiated the actions.

FDR's administration devised a method for trying the German commandos that did not involve the court system. This is equivalent to Bush's setting-up tribunals to try the GTMO detainees.

I don't understand your last sentence. What are you trying to say, exactly?

B

t walgamuth · #65 10-20-2007, 07:17 AM

If you used arguements that were different from the Bush administration's to justify their actions I would respect it.

It is kindof like quoting a child molester saying "I do children because I like it".

Probably a bad example.

If you see no difference between the Lincoln situation and now....well, I guess we aren't going to agree.

Now why would the German commandos be tried in our civilian courts? I see no reason for that. They clearly were military personell, right?

Tom W

Botnst · #66 10-21-2007, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

...
Now why would the German commandos be tried in our civilian courts? I see no reason for that. They clearly were military personell, right?

Tom W

They were clearly NOT military. Had they been clearly soldiers they'd simply have been put in POW camps. That is the obligation of signatories of the Geneva Conventions. They absolutely could NOT be tried for military operations while under the flag or in the uniform of one of the belligerents.

They were dressed in civilian clothing which according to the Geneva Conventions, removes the obligations of the Geneva Conventions. That is exactly why OSS and British agents in occupied Europe could be legally tortured and executed by the Gestapo, and many were. Those gestapo agents were acting under lawful orders of the period. The Germans captured in the USA were the equivalent of our OSS.

Now, fast-forward to GTMO.

The people being held there were not in uniform nor clearly under the authority of a legally belligerent country. Therefore, they have NO RIGHTS under the Geneva Conventions. They are not citizens of the USA so they have no inherent rights due to citizenship. It becomes the choice of USA how to treat those folks.

That decision concerning the enemy combatants captured overseas has followed a legal path through Congress and the courts and back to the courts again. As it should have done. Additionally, aliens captured in the USA have mostly NOT faced the military tribunal. Mostly they have ended-up in the court system and tried according to the laws of the land.

FDR did NOT follow that path. Illegal enemy combatants that we captured on our shores faced a military court and were executed. End of story and good riddance.

Bot

cmac2012 · #67 10-21-2007, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howitzer

Most of the captives are not due to surrender people I know in the "talkin to" game tell me that torture is largely ineffective for good information.

NPR's Fresh Air had a show the other day about torture, there's human rights group giving an award for best, most honest, media depictions of torture, the show was partly about that. They also had a guest who had done interrogations in Vietnam, Panama, and elsewhere.

The guy had the best info I'd heard on what works and what doesn't and he gives the best, dryest, and most cooly professional ***** slap to Rumsfeld on the topic that I've heard.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15148243

He mentions what you speak of, that torture usually yields what the torturee thinks you want to hear.

cmac2012 · #68 10-21-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

The people being held there were not in uniform nor clearly under the authority of a legally belligerent country. Therefore, they have NO RIGHTS under the Geneva Conventions. They are not citizens of the USA so they have no inherent rights due to citizenship. It becomes the choice of USA how to treat those folks.

That decision concerning the enemy combatants captured overseas has followed a legal path through Congress and the courts and back to the courts again. As it should have done. Additionally, aliens captured in the USA have mostly NOT faced the military tribunal. Mostly they have ended-up in the court system and tried according to the laws of the land.

FDR did NOT follow that path. Illegal enemy combatants that we captured on our shores faced a military court and were executed. End of story and good riddance.

Captured on our shores. That's key. As far as being illegal combatants, the teeming masses who hate us will see this as us making up rules to suit us.

This particular rule makes excellent sense when large nations, i.e. WW2 powers, are involved, but in the case of Afghanistan., we were up against impoverished, traditionally lightly organized factions, ruled much more by tribal than govt. loyalties.

As I've said before, for them to dress up in uniform and meet us on the open plains for battle would mean their rapid annihilation. Who is going to essentially say, "defeat us at once, imperialist dogs."

aklim · #69 10-21-2007, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

He mentions what you speak of, that torture usually yields what the torturee thinks you want to hear.

So what? Lets say they usually tell us what we want to hear but there is a chance that they will also blurt out some info that we DO want to hear and happens to be true, what did it cost us? Why should we take that chance?

aklim · #70 10-21-2007, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

As far as being illegal combatants, the teeming masses who hate us will see this as us making up rules to suit us.

As I've said before, for them to dress up in uniform and meet us on the open plains for battle would mean their rapid annihilation.

Oh, well, one more nail in our coffin among what? Hundreds? Again, what loss? They already hate us. What is one more reason?

So why should that rag called the GC be used there then? The intent is to ensure that your people, in the case of capture are treated well. If they aren't going to go with that or play by any of the GC rules, what is the point of us using them? So we can say we know what they are?

cmac2012 · #71 10-22-2007, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

So what? Lets say they usually tell us what we want to hear but there is a chance that they will also blurt out some info that we DO want to hear and happens to be true, what did it cost us? Why should we take that chance?

Because we will be running around like fools, chasing down and acting on faulty leads. Listen to the Fresh Air episode I linked to. The gentleman there knows far more about than you ever will.

And as for what it cost us, the blowback from torture is likely to be enormous. Unless we kill everyone we torture, and that has its own set of problems, the PR loss is definite whereas the intelligence gain is suspect.

Botnst · #72 10-22-2007, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

...
1. Captured on our shores. That's key. As far as being illegal combatants, the teeming masses who hate us will see this as us making up rules to suit us.

2. As I've said before, for them to dress up in uniform and meet us on the open plains for battle would mean their rapid annihilation. Who is going to essentially say, "defeat us at once, imperialist dogs."

1. Clarify, please.

2. Well golly-gee, Wally, if they can't fight fairly and according to the rules, getting all f**king goody-two-shoes about the interrogation of the murdering bastards in GTMO seems self-defeating.

Oh wait, I got now.

B

aklim · #73 10-22-2007, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Because we will be running around like fools, chasing down and acting on faulty leads.

And as for what it cost us, the blowback from torture is likely to be enormous. Unless we kill everyone we torture, and that has its own set of problems, the PR loss is definite whereas the intelligence gain is suspect.

I see. Instead of no leads? Even if you get intel thru other means, you still have to chase it down.

Screw the PR loss. Why should we care about it? The other side certainly doesn't and are still going strong.

tankdriver · #74 10-22-2007, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

2. Well golly-gee, Wally, if they can't fight fairly and according to the rules, getting all f**king goody-two-shoes about the interrogation of the possible murdering bastards in GTMO seems self-defeating.

Oh wait, I got now.

B

FYP.
I see no reason to abandon our morality because they have.

Botnst · #75 10-22-2007, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

FYP.
I see no reason to abandon our morality because they have.

Rules? In a knife fight?