Bush White House still Actively Championing Torture

[Soldier]

They're not hearing the truth, period. We could put prisoners up in five star hotels, and they're still going to hear that they're being tortured, brutalized, forced to watch daytime TV soap operas, etc.

Now, even if we were to consider that the enemy is hearing the truth about what is happening after capture, one must weigh the benefit of gaining information against the detriment of it being harder to take an enemy prisoner. Most humans, however, will choose the option of life, even if they don't know really what it's going to be like. Why didn't more downed American pilots just kill themselves in Vietnam? They knew what was going on in the prison camps. Yet they still chose to live.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Soldier

They're not hearing the truth, period. We could put prisoners up in five star hotels, and they're still going to hear that they're being tortured, brutalized, forced to watch daytime TV soap operas, etc.

It is true that the American media likes stories, especially negative ones. But I think it's hard to justify the Abu Gharib pictures.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

It is true that the American media likes stories, especially negative ones. But I think it's hard to justify the Abu Gharib pictures.

It's not just the America media, in fact, one can attribute it to the Battlefield media, which is most likely word of mouth information for the most part. I'm willing to bet soldier's left nut that this form of news is highly slanted against the opposing side.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Rogue

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.

I didn't say that. I said that doing so would be wrong. I don't think we torture every Iraqi prisoner. I think the percentage is actually very, very small. But I think it's wrong to torture prisoners in situations where the prisonners have not necessarily been allowed a trial, or even the opportunity to defend themselves. How can you tell whether someone screaming "I don't know" in Iraqi (or whatever the hell they speak) is lying, or really doesn't know? Even if we captured only terrorists, the vast majority of them still wouldn't know about attacks.

Originally Posted by Rogue

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.

That's really easy to say, sitting at home and typing on a computer. But mental torture is by no means fun. That's why we use it. You can say, hey, loud music, who cares? But lets say the army puts on loud music for 2 weeks. So you can't sleep. And your ears hurt. And then there's more and more side effects, especially with the sleep deprivation. It might not be torture in the classic sense, but saying that it's not torture at all is simply wrong.

Originally Posted by Rogue

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.

Yeah, there're lots of people out there saying that the terrorists are justified in the beheadings. Oh, wait, no there aren't. We're just as horrified as you are by their actions, and only a few lunatics are trying to say that the terrorists are justified under the circumstances. But the difference is that we can't change the terrorists, but we CAN change the government. Of course we're against beheadings, that's why the terrorists do them, for the shock value. But I don't see how that justifies torturing Iraqis in our prisons, Iraqis who may or may not have anything to do with terrorism, Saddam, or rebellion against the U.S.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Soldier

They're not hearing the truth, period. We could put prisoners up in five star hotels, and they're still going to hear that they're being tortured, brutalized, forced to watch daytime TV soap operas, etc.

.

But that hypothetical situation wouldn't be the truth - and we would be able to show it to the world via neutral, trusted sources like the International Red Cross (and Red Crescent).

Instead, the truth is that we are subjecting prisoners to abusive conditions, which only inflames people to hate us more.. Our government agrees that it's abuse - we just convicted somebody of doing it. There is evidence that it's widespread (cf: FBI memos). Why are some people here insistent on rationalizing brutality? It's stupid as well as wron

Originally Posted by Soldier

Now, even if we were to consider that the enemy is hearing the truth about what is happening after capture, one must weigh the benefit of gaining information against the detriment of it being harder to take an enemy prisoner. Most humans, however, will choose the option of life, even if they don't know really what it's going to be like. Why didn't more downed American pilots just kill themselves in Vietnam? They knew what was going on in the prison camps. Yet they still chose to live.

And there is no ethical consideration? Not to mention the dubious value of the "intel" produced from it, and the fact that it's been applied randomly and wholesale.

Balance this, instead, on our further weakened ability to claim moral superiority.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

It is true that the American media likes stories, especially negative ones. But I think it's hard to justify the Abu Gharib pictures.

I'm not trying to. I'm saying that some of the pictures I've seen didn't seem too bad. Some of them did. And taking pictures and gloating over it is stupid anyway. I just don't think that the UN/world expectation of prisoner treatment is anything to try to abide, and I have no problems with a lot of interrogation techniques most of the world gasps at.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

It's not just the America media, in fact, one can attribute it to the Battlefield media, which is most likely word of mouth information for the most part. I'm willing to bet soldier's left nut that this form of news is highly slanted against the opposing side.

Hey now, leave my nuts out of this! Bet your own, if you're that confident!

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Hey now, leave my nuts out of this! Bet your own, if you're that confident!

I've never been in/on a battlefield. When your bet is based purely on conjecture it's good to hedge it a little

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by jeff

But that hypothetical situation wouldn't be the truth - and we would be able to show it to the world via neutral, trusted sources like the International Red Cross (and Red Crescent).

Instead, the truth is that we are subjecting prisoners to abusive conditions, which only inflames people to hate us more.. Our government agrees that it's abuse - we just convicted somebody of doing it. There is evidence that it's widespread (cf: FBI memos). Why are some people here insistent on rationalizing brutality? It's stupid as well as wrong.

Brutality is wrong, yes - as were a lot of the things that were done. I'm not trying to deny or rationalize them. My point is that it makes little difference what perception the enemy has of our treatment of prisoners. Also, I find it highly unlikely the average enemy has any idea what's going on. How many of them do you think get information from the Red Cross/Crescent?

Originally Posted by jeff

And there is no ethical consideration? Not to mention the dubious value of the "intel" produced from it, and the fact that it's been applied randomly and wholesale.

Balance this, instead, on our further weakened ability to claim moral superiority.

You always take HumInt with a large grain of salt. But everything helps. And putting people in very uncomfortable situations (as well as offering them relief for talking) does a lot to get information. Yes, it does actually work.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

I've never been in/on a battlefield. When your bet is based purely on conjecture it's good to hedge it a little

Then at least bet Inq's left nut!

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Most humans, however, will choose the option of life,

Nope. Not Muslims. Cultural and religious differences in the way these people were raised and in what they believe, do not put the option of life over the demands of serving Allah.

Death is glory and honor.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Then at least bet Inq's left nut!

Tell, you what... I'll throw in Inq's RIGHT nut to sweeten the pot.

[Maeve_Mari]

There is a huge difference between interrogation and torture. Moral human beings do not torture. Period. It is illegal in our country to torture other human beings. It is even illegal to torture animals. Soldiers who cross the line from interrogation to torture are violating the law and are immoral.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Nope. Not Muslims. Cultural and religious differences in the way these people were raised and in what they believe, do not put the option of life over the demands of serving Allah.

Death is glory and honor.

In addition, their familial/clan structure is haveily tied to their religion. To bring shame on their family would be a fate worse than death for many.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Brutality is wrong, yes - as were a lot of the things that were done. I'm not trying to deny or rationalize them. My point is that it makes little difference what perception the enemy has of our treatment of prisoners. Also, I find it highly unlikely the average enemy has any idea what's going on. How many of them do you think get information from the Red Cross/Crescent?

Quite a few actually: Al Jazeera widely reported Abu Ghraib and the others, and they report what the IRC says, as do other outlets. Look how the enemy is mocking Bush for his "bring it on" remark, in videos that are being used to recruit more. Don't underestimate their access to media.

Besides mistreatment of our prisoners - btw, I saw a long list of retired generals and military lawyers against our brutal actions for exactly that reason - think of how this is a recruitment poster for Al Qaeda, and further cripples our ability to get cooperations from all other countries.

Besides being wrong, this is stupid. Let's acknowledge both

Originally Posted by Soldier

You always take HumInt with a large grain of salt. But everything helps. And putting people in very uncomfortable situations (as well as offering them relief for talking) does a lot to get information. Yes, it does actually work.

But there is a line one doesn't cross, especially when we're trying to win hearts and minds (destroying the village in order to save it was a losing tactic in Vietnam), and this is just wholesale brutality. Think about it: Did torture help the French keep Algeria?

[jeff]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Tell, you what... I'll throw in Inq's RIGHT nut to sweeten the pot.

Eeewww - nasty mixed metaphor. You wanna put what in the pot? Eh.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Nope. Not Muslims. Cultural and religious differences in the way these people were raised and in what they believe, do not put the option of life over the demands of serving Allah.

Death is glory and honor.

Then you're just adding to my point that enemy perceptions of captivity won't make much difference.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Tell, you what... I'll throw in Inq's RIGHT nut to sweeten the pot.

I'll see that, and raise you a...nevermind.