Bush White House still Actively Championing Torture

[Gav]

Looks like my prescience has struck again. The Register has just covered an article on the proposed DNA database:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01..._dna_database/

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Rogue

That's it?
Remember these aren't jay walkers.

Your lack of empathy for what remain your fellow human beings is rather disgusting. What did the people in the pictures do to wind up in the jail? Do you know? No. Why do you assume? Even if they had committed the most henious crimes thinkable, our legal system both civilian and military as well as the 'American ethic' runs distinctly contrary to what was going on. Bad behavior on the part of one party has never been and still isn't cause for bad behavior on the part of another, in any case.

The people we hold on life sentences aren't jay walkers either, but they are treated better than that.

War is perhaps hell, but Congress hasn't declaired Iraq one of those yet, have they

[Bokken]

Let's not forget that the administration officially called off the search for WMD's in Iraq yesterday. As I recall, that was the entire basis of our invasion in the first place. Finding none, what does that do for our moral high ground?


Yes, yes, I know, Saddam was a right b@stard and should've been booted from office years ago. However, a country such as ours that seeks to operate from a clear moral standpoint can not invade another country just because we don't like their leader. The specter of a threat just isn't enough to justify the violation of another country's legal sovreignity. Hard evidence is required and in this case was non-existent.

In my mind, that makes the torture of Iraqis (Interrogation techniques to those who prefer 'liquidate' to 'kill') far worse since we're there illegally. Information gathering is well and good, but the methods used have generated so much hate in the rest of the world...we're doing OBL's work for him.

Oh, and does anyone recall the case with the FBI agent accusing Navy SEALs of torture? I can't remember much about it except there were photos also involved.

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by Bokken

Yes, yes, I know, Saddam was a right b@stard and should've been booted from office years ago. However, a country such as ours that seeks to operate from a clear moral standpoint can not invade another country just because we don't like their leader. The specter of a threat just isn't enough to justify the violation of another country's legal sovreignity. Hard evidence is required and in this case was non-existent.

Booted by whom? Who would run against him? In the last Iraqi "election", Saddam got 100% of the vote. No challengers I know of. Must be those tough campaign finance reforms.

In light of 911, the spector of threat, especially from terrorists with WMDs, was enough justification for most Americans. Hard evidence was provided. It just turned out to be incorrect. Hindsight is a great thing, unfortunately it is never around when the hard decisions need to be made.

[jeff]

Except that the 'hard evidence' was more claimed (and invented) than real. There's far more evidence that the neocons wanted Saddam out even before 9/11.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by jeff

There's far more evidence that the neocons wanted Saddam out even before 9/11.

Pres. Clinton a Neocon?

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by noodle

this thread makes me sad. i'm not going to say anything except this:

what is the difference between someone in iraq who is aiding the resistance there, as opposed to anti-war protestors here?

one will probably get tortured for information if caught.

Let's see, the anti-war protestor doesn't hack peoples heads off.
They don't blow up women and children in suicide bombs.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Your lack of empathy for what remain your fellow human beings is rather disgusting.

Their lack of humanity for 3000 people on 9/11/01, Nick Berg, Paul Johnston, 12 Nepalese hostages, the Korean and Pakistani hostages, et al disgust me.
This is our enemy.
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/nepal.wmv
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/video/johnson-murder.wmv
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/bergvideo.html

In order to prevent this, and attacks of greater scale we must get information.
What happened at Abu Graib and Gitmo, hazing when compared to our enemy's treatment of our countrymen and allies.
Actually, there is no comparison of their behavior and ours.

[mrbiggs]

Rogue, you're rationalizing our actions with theirs. But as I posted earlier, that's really against our country's basic policies. We can't just torture every Iraqi person we capture because they're....Iraqi. If the terrorists had little name tags they all wore, then I'd be all for the torture. But they don't, and we have very little idea whether or not a given prisoner is a terrorist.

Also, torture has for many, many years proven to be a bad method for getting information. If the prisoner is not a terrorist, they'll be forced to make something up to get out of the punishment. If they are a terrorist, odds are they'll do the same, or not talk at all. Torturing increases the amount of information we receive, but not the quality.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Rogue, you're rationalizing our actions with theirs. But as I posted earlier, that's really against our country's basic policies. We can't just torture every Iraqi person we capture because they're....Iraqi. If the terrorists had little name tags they all wore, then I'd be all for the torture. But they don't, and we have very little idea whether or not a given prisoner is a terrorist.

I doubt all the Iraqis that are running for office, the ones that join the Iraq nat'l guard or police force have been tortured.
To say that we torture everyone we detain is wrong and, IMO goes to show that you enjoy putting the US in a negative light.

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Also, torture has for many, many years proven to be a bad method for getting information. If the prisoner is not a terrorist, they'll be forced to make something up to get out of the punishment. If they are a terrorist, odds are they'll do the same, or not talk at all. Torturing increases the amount of information we receive, but not the quality.

That's why the methods we use are NOT torture. Loud music, sleep deprivation, being wrapped in a Israel flag, water boarding (also something used by our armed forces as a training tool) It is coercion to be sure, but hardly torture in the classic sense.

Again, where is the outcry against the real horrific acts? It seems we are told to understand their acts while we jump to denounce the entire US effort at every opportunity.

[esskreemr]

This is an excellent point on two fronts, gav.

1) You don't win over the hearts of occupied people by shooting them every time somebody looks at you. You merely create more enemies, particularly in an area where blood ties often come before any other allegiance.

2) Many people seem to easily dismiss the effects of killing a person on the soldier who fired the bullet. Soldiers are trained to kill. They are taught to kill without emotion. For most NORMAL human beings, causing the death of another human being can be a traumatic experience, even if that person is firing at you. Now compound that with the potential that the 12 year old whose brains you just splattered all over the rubble was carrying a long stick. The result can be devastating.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Pres. Clinton a Neocon?

Of course not. A lot of people wanted Saddam out of power, but only the neocons put together a program to "project American power" to make it so, with a cover motivation of national defense to justify it.

[Gav]

Thanks Ess'. I just thought that some of the comments on ths thread seemed to have missed the point that you cannot win over a local populace by torture and intimidation. In the end the populace will rise up and then what? How does the saying go? "He who defends everything defends nothing." If the west wants to take the high ground and really mean what it says when it says "getting rid of Saddam was worth it" then it cannot act like him. The governments cannot turn a blind eye to any human rights abuses and still claim the previous regime was evil and that their way is better. If anyone wants another example look at the French army in Spain during the peninsular war or the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

As for your second point. I completely agree. Soldiers are trained to kill - it's their chosen proffesion after all. Mr Grunt in the front line has to make these decisions all the time. If his peers and superiors make the assumption that everyone is a potentiual terrorist then he will shoot more often than not. Compound that with the fact that these people look different, sound different and act different then it becomes all the harder. The only time I can think of where such actions were successful (ok, partially successful) was the Aden crisis in the 60's. Arguably the UK's last Imperial action. Troops managed to surpress the entire population of Adem by some quite bloodthirsty methods. The entire population. But they did this by virtually installing themselves as a de facto military junta. However I would contend that, depsite the short term gains in terms of actual lack of bloodshed (people were so terrified of the Scottish Battalion [I think it was the Argyles] they wouldn't leave their homes) that we are still dealing with the fallout (vis a vis Middle Eastern suspicion of foreign interests on their soil). As it happens Aden was handed over to the new Yemenese authorities shortly afterwards. The UK government wanted a peaceful handover to end its colonial days but had to revise the timetable as a result of the military's intervention. If I remember correctly Yemen fell into anarchy as the British left and it has never really recovered. So it goes to show that if you want to win hearts and minds; do it properly. The UK managed it in the northern Ireland after 20 years. The coalition will not do it in months. If the troops on the ground are allowed to intimidate and abuse the populace it will take much longer. On top of that you have to deal with the fallout.

[CutLass]

Have you looked at the pictures from Abu Ghrabid lately? Been reminded of what our soldiers say they were ordered to do there?

http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

When my son is sent into service I would have wanted for him, and for me, the peace of mind knowing that the is a humanity agreement in place for the treatment of prisoners during war time. Now, because of what our country let happen at Abu Ghrabid - I fear that the future holds for our soldiers and for their mothers, a certainty of revenge and wrath against our american prisoners.

[Soldier]

Wait, wait, wait. You're saying that anti-American brutality is caused by this? As in, it wasn't already happening? As in, the enemy wasn't already ignoring any kind of concept of human rights long beforehand?

By the way, I've looked at the Abu Ghraib pictures. I'll grant it's phenomenally stupid to take pictures of these things, bragging. And I'll grant some of it was definitely overboard (wires on genitals, etc.). But I see nothing wrong with chaining them so they have to stand upright, naked. Or in very uncomfortable positions. Or very cold. Sleep-deprived. Bombarded with loud music. Threatened by dogs. Et cetera. I have no problems with these treatments. Hell, the Academy used to do a lot of stuff like that. I'll go through it when I get to the rest of my survival training. If it's not too bad for us to go through, why not them?

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Wait, wait, wait. You're saying that anti-American brutality is caused by this? As in, it wasn't already happening? As in, the enemy wasn't already ignoring any kind of concept of human rights long beforehand?

Prior to the (second) invasion of Iraq, the US policy was to grant protections to all prisoners even if they were not technically covered by the Geneva Conventions under the theory that this would be more likely to lead to future combatants (not necessarily who they were fighting at the time) to comply with Geneva in its treatment of US prisoners.

By the way, I've looked at the Abu Ghraib pictures. I'll grant it's phenomenally stupid to take pictures of these things, bragging. And I'll grant some of it was definitely overboard (wires on genitals, etc.).

And the sodomization with objects, the actual attacks by dogs, the beatings, and the covered-up deaths....

But I see nothing wrong with chaining them so they have to stand upright, naked. Or in very uncomfortable positions. Or very cold. Sleep-deprived. Bombarded with loud music. Threatened by dogs. Et cetera. I have no problems with these treatments.

What would be your reaction to pictures of US personell subjected to the same treatment? Say if the Chinese did it to the EP-3 crewmen back in early 2001?

Hell, the Academy used to do a lot of stuff like that. I'll go through it when I get to the rest of my survival training. If it's not too bad for us to go through, why not them?

And when they put you on a block and hook wires to you and tell you they're going to kill you if you move, will you believe them?

--Philistine

[CutLass]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Wait, wait, wait. You're saying that anti-American brutality is caused by this? As in, it wasn't already happening? As in, the enemy wasn't already ignoring any kind of concept of human rights long beforehand?

By the way, I've looked at the Abu Ghraib pictures. I'll grant it's phenomenally stupid to take pictures of these things, bragging. And I'll grant some of it was definitely overboard (wires on genitals, etc.). But I see nothing wrong with chaining them so they have to stand upright, naked. Or in very uncomfortable positions. Or very cold. Sleep-deprived. Bombarded with loud music. Threatened by dogs. Et cetera. I have no problems with these treatments. Hell, the Academy used to do a lot of stuff like that. I'll go through it when I get to the rest of my survival training. If it's not too bad for us to go through, why not them?

So, it's the photographing of the fun and games which was a mistake?

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Prior to the (second) invasion of Iraq, the US policy was to grant protections to all prisoners even if they were not technically covered by the Geneva Conventions under the theory that this would be more likely to lead to future combatants (not necessarily who they were fighting at the time) to comply with Geneva in its treatment of US prisoners.

That's the theory. Was it actually happening?

Originally Posted by Philistine

And the sodomization with objects, the actual attacks by dogs, the beatings, and the covered-up deaths....

I talked about what I saw in the pictures, and I believe I listed the specific things I thought were alright. I did not say anything like what you are talking about would be alright. Beatings are borderline. If the dogs were allowed to actually attack, then no, that's not right.

Originally Posted by Philistine

What would be your reaction to pictures of US personell subjected to the same treatment? Say if the Chinese did it to the EP-3 crewmen back in early 2001?

Not quite the same situation, since we're not at war with China. Like I said, taking pictures was the bad thing to do. Now, had I seen pictures of the same things done to American POWs, of course I would be mad. I would want some kind of retaliatory measure (if it was a case like China). If it was somebody we were actually at war with, while I would be angry that they had American POWs, it wouldn't be something really out of the ordinary; simply that much more motivation to win the war and/or rescue them.

Originally Posted by Philistine

And when they put you on a block and hook wires to you and tell you they're going to kill you if you move, will you believe them?

--Philistine

There's only so much you can simulate in training. I have been told to stay in one position without moving, fearing losing a meal, or some other kind or awfully rotten punishment. And I've talked to many graduates from here who've spoken of times when they really did think they were going to die.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by CutLass

So, it's the photographing of the fun and games which was a mistake?

Partially. I understand there were worse things happening than what were going on in the pictures, and those were also mistakes. My point is that a lot of what was being shown as horrid/sensational, really isn't that bad.