Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Brownshirt on March 08, 2008, 05:36:36 PM
-
I just don't get it. If it's good for getting information then shouldn't it be freely used by police to get much needed information from criminals?
-
you are right, you just don't get it.
-
John rushes to this thread to share some irony with us all. :D
-
Well there is that little thing called the US Constitution. :confused:
-
Need to re-title this thread: Is 'waterboarding' torture? If you can't see any harm 15 minutes later, no, I believe it isn't. (I'll choose waterboarding over electrodes on my privates, hot poker shoved up my arse, cigars burned into my arms, every time :aok) (Is anyone aware that we have only ever used that procedure on THREE people?)
-
If the terrorists are not US citizens, they have no rights under our law.
Since terrorists are not uniformed members of any countrys army, they have no rights under Geneva Convention.
Do whatever it takes to win.
-
Speaking of torture, I recently entered this picture in a "bad movie adaption concepts" contest:
(http://hallbuzz.com/images/cracked/peter_pan_in_abu_ghraib.jpg)
I don't think they got it though; you have to recognize both pictures for it to make sense.
-
Just when I think Eskimo is a normal guy, he tends to throw those curve balls that make you say....
WTF !?!?!
-
you have to recognize both pictures for it to make sense.
I guess that's why, Rip. I thought it was pretty funny. :)
-
If the terrorists are not US citizens, they have no rights under our law.
Since terrorists are not uniformed members of any countrys army, they have no rights under Geneva Convention.
Do whatever it takes to win.
Don't blame them if they torture your soldiers or civilians. Torture doesn't do any good, most often it's simply a way to relieve your bad feelings. A pretty poor way to make friends on a long run.
Why again was it bad that Saddam tortured his own people? I mean, they were terrorists from his point of view. Iraq's constitution and laws allowed it.
Besides that, I wonder how long it takes before the US starts to torture it's own criminals - after all, they're criminals, it's their own fault. Don't do crimes if you don't want to get tortured, right?
By all the definitions of the word "torture" does apply to waterboarding.
Oh yeah.. do you guys really believe that torturing people will give you correct answers? Any one of you can be made to confess any terrorist act by torturing, even if you never knew about those.
-
Don't blame them if they torture your soldiers or civilians. Torture doesn't do any good, most often it's simply a way to relieve your bad feelings. A pretty poor way to make friends on a long run.
Why again was it bad that Saddam tortured his own people? I mean, they were terrorists from his point of view. Iraq's constitution and laws allowed it.
Besides that, I wonder how long it takes before the US starts to torture it's own criminals - after all, they're criminals, it's their own fault. Don't do crimes if you don't want to get tortured, right?
By all the definitions of the word "torture" does apply to waterboarding.
Oh yeah.. do you guys really believe that torturing people will give you correct answers? Any one of you can be made to confess any terrorist act by torturing, even if you never knew about those.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed sang like a canary after waterboarding, and the nice Islamists have brutally butchered every one of our people they've ever layed their hands on
-
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed sang like a canary after waterboarding, and the nice Islamists have brutally butchered every one of our people they've ever layed their hands on
Yeah, like I said, anyone can be made to confess anything by torturing. However, the reliability of confession gained through torture is questionable.
I'm not sure I believe this particular Mohammed necessarily participated in every terrorist act he's confessed. He was tortured to confess. Either he participated in the attacks or he chose to confess to save himself from being tortured all the time.
-
You simply ask verifiable information
-
I guess we need to pass all our information by the Fishu filter...just
to be certain :rolleyes:
-
Need to re-title this thread: Is 'waterboarding' torture? If you can't see any harm 15 minutes later, no, I believe it isn't.
Boy you'd be surprised what kind of pain I could give you if that's how you define if it's torturing or not... anyways also cigaret burn marks will heal in few weeks, why should the limit be 15 minutes?
-
Boy you'd be surprised what kind of pain I could give you if that's how you define if it's torturing or not... anyways also cigaret burn marks will heal in few weeks, why should the limit be 15 minutes?
It's a misconception that torture only applies to physical injury or pain. I'd like to see him on the receiving end of waterboarding and still insist it's not torture. I don't think that's going to happen, he won't have the guts to have it tried on him.
-
Every enemy of the state was asked "verifiable" questions prior to execution in Nazi Germany. Every Jew asked verifiable questions during internment before gassing in Auschwitz. And civilians in Japanese territory were asked "verifiable questions" over suspicians about their roles as spies and saboteurs.
Rationalization was the main defense at Neuremburg. And if it was horrible ... it was necessary. It was orders. Jews weren't human ... much less German. Nor were Chinese worthy to be treated like anything other than sheep to be slaughtered, on regular occasion, to amuse and test swords by the Japanese. Nor American servicemen who surrendered rather than die.
We brag our culture has certainly progressed more than the combined cultures of all Muslim nations and communities worldwide, right? If someone, helpless in our custody though suspected of ties to terrorism, has a stroke or heart attack under the strain of "questioning" at least we didn't cut their head off slowly with a blunt machete. They're all savages, every single one. And the best excuse to torture them is that they aren't human, much less American, and they deserve it. That's how we protect ourselves from becoming what we despise most. That's how we shine the light of liberty. How we promote the virtue of Democracy. How we set the standard and inspire through example. That's how we keep our deserving culture and society alive. That's what your fathers, grandfathers and their fathers before them fought for.
Not.
I don't see the rationalization of the most unAmerican traits I can imagine, wrapped in the flag under the pretense that we're worthy of the respect and humanity we readily deny others in the name of "patriotism," anything more than shamefully throwing away the inheritance our forefathers granted us with their very lives. What good is protecting my nation while transforming it into something that's no longer the nation I (or my grandfathers) knew? My children deserve better. So do yours, whether you want to rationalize denial over that or not.
-
It's a misconception that torture only applies to physical injury or pain. I'd like to see him on the receiving end of waterboarding and still insist it's not torture. I don't think that's going to happen, he won't have the guts to have it tried on him.
How do you put simulated drowning in with this:MAY 24--In a recent raid on an al-Qaeda safe house in Iraq, U.S. military officials recovered an assortment of crude drawings depicting torture methods like "blowtorch to the skin" and "eye removal." Along with the images, which you'll find on the following pages, soldiers seized various torture implements, like meat cleavers, whips, and wire cutters
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture2.html
-
How do you put simulated drowning in with this
And how again two wrongs makes right? Wasn't our culture supposed to be more civilized than their medieval culture?
I see nothing wrong with killing those who torture others, but torturing is the wrong way to deal with the issue.
-
I simply don't believe it to be 'torture'---making them uncomfortable (plunking them on concrete floor naked in 50 degree room, etc)---I simply cannot see such things defined as 'torture'---and to repeat my earlier statement--for all we've heard about our cavalier use of 'waterboarding'---it's only ever been used on 3 prisoners, and not within the last 4-odd years
-
torture by governments is not acceptable.
On a personal level... It would be rarely acceptable. It would have to be life or death. that is not an acceptable reason for governments.
If I had to torture someone to say, save a loved one. I would do it realizing that I would have to face a jury of my peers. I would accept that going in.
For governments it is never acceptable as policy. there can be no justification for a policy of torture.
lazs
-
This is when it helps to be an arrogant, elitist, misogynistic, judgmental bigot. I have always felt it best to lead by example and these days it's even more important what with the CNN's of the world, the WWW , phone cams and such. It's my measured opinion that the U.S. is home to the most evolved society on the planet. We're smarter, kinder, better looking and more evolved than any other in the history of mankind and it undermines that reality when we behave like the animals Manifest Destiny has made our obligation to manage.
To define something one must understand what that thing is and consequently, is not. If we are to legitimately claim our primacy as the world's leaders we must behave accordingly. It's not enough that we commit acts of inhumanity for the right reasons. We must not commit acts of inhumanity for any reason and instead employ our considerable resources and intellect to accomplish what we set out to do.
It's all armchair quarterbacking once it's all said and done. No matter who the perpetrator is, they almost always have some justification that mitigates their guilt. Sometimes they even have a point. But it's far more effective to be able to truly hold the moral high ground when ones actions speak as loudly as their words.
-
It's my measured opinion that the U.S. is home to the most evolved society on the planet. We're smarter, kinder, better looking and more evolved than any other in the history of mankind
just ... wow :o
-
I agree that "waterboarding" can truley be considered torture, but I think there are degrees ... which depends on how it is done. the issue isn't black and white. I also think its pretty dumb to make legislation about an act of war which would be binding on us but not the enemy.
there is a huge difference in waterboarding a person without regard to oxygen deprivation, water aspiration or other injury, for a continuous period of time without respite to total failure of the individual's will to endure... (counter-productive with unreliable info)
...as opposed to a momentary psychological experience that is over in 5 seconds, with careful safeguards against injury - as a demonstration before questioning. I believe this would still be considered "torture", but way more humane than the first way.
I'm against torture that damages a person phycically or mentaly, but I think it is acceptable to use some levels of coercion or trickery to convince an enemy that it might be in their best interest to share military information. I think our highest military commanders should have that tool in their toolbox in certain conditions. Its too bad this has become a political issue.
just a credible threat of waterboarding could pursuade a knowledgable individual that it might be better to open up and be forthcoming. It sure as heck would work on me... but could that be called torture?
if we are going to moralize about this, what the heck are we doing fighting wars in the first place?
-
bear with me for a minute...
Consider a major thoroughfare with a speed limit of 45 mph.
There are, for the sake of argument, (6) fatalities on this roadway each year.
Traffic control reports that reducing the speed limit to 3 mph, and enforcing it, will save 6 lives each year.
What do you think the chances are that the speed limit will be reduced to 3 mph?
Slim to none.
Why?
We have made a moral judgment that commuting convenience and promoting commerce is worth more than 6 human lives each year. This is the cost-versus-benefit judgment on the value of human life that we all take part in.
In the same way, there is a cost versus benefit judgment on the torture issue as well, its just a bit more uncomfortable to dwell on "torture" because the truth is more easily seen.
-
I simply don't believe it to be 'torture'---making them uncomfortable (plunking them on concrete floor naked in 50 degree room, etc)---I simply cannot see such things defined as 'torture'---and to repeat my earlier statement--for all we've heard about our cavalier use of 'waterboarding'---it's only ever been used on 3 prisoners, and not within the last 4-odd years
It might not seem that bad when it happens just once, but try several times during a month. Keeping someone in uncomfortable position over extended period of time is torture.
Why is it that people only seem to think that inflicting severe pain is torture, but the other forms of torture are something else because no pain or only a little pain is inflicted?
A few hundred years ago japanese and chinese used somewhat different form of torture compared to europeans. Europeans preferred to inflict pain while japanese and chinese tortured people by putting them into extremely uncomfortable situation over an extended period of time. They didn't have a hurry with it.
-
When we start using tools like this on human beings I'll join your camp in this debate
(http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0524072torture7.jpg)
-
Ahh I see now. So pain and discomfort applied to an individual in order to get them to confess, or say what you want to hear, is only torture if it is applied with those particular impliments?
That is good to know.
RTR
-
do not torture terrorists, just chop off their heads and send the tape to al jazeera.
i prefer the Genghis Khan method of diplomacy, swear allegiance to me or die.
-
Yep and see how well that worked. lol
-
Where do we draw the final line on torture?
Timed "Long Division tests that must show the work?".
Reruns of Ice Road Truckers on the History Channel?
LTARs taking base after base in GV's?
;)
Mac
-
Waterboarding is simulated drowning. Its a close call for me but I'm going to allow it :t
-
Well I've burnt skin with cigars so I'll allow it too. Also I've strangled a guy so he become unconsciousness, I see it wasn't torturing because of no lasting marks (except in that guys mind, you can bet your bellybutton for that...). I think I'd like to work for US government :t
-
Well I've burnt skin with cigars so I'll allow it too. Also I've strangled a guy so he become unconsciousness, I see it wasn't torturing because of no lasting marks (except in that guys mind, you can bet your bellybutton for that...). I think I'd like to work for US government :t
Has Mr. Black returned? :noid
-
mister black = brownstain?
whooda thunkt ;)
-
torture by governments is not acceptable.
On a personal level... It would be rarely acceptable. It would have to be life or death. that is not an acceptable reason for governments.
If I had to torture someone to say, save a loved one. I would do it realizing that I would have to face a jury of my peers. I would accept that going in.
For governments it is never acceptable as policy. there can be no justification for a policy of torture.
lazs
The one constant we share consistantly, it seems.
-
When we start using tools like this on human beings I'll join your camp in this debate
(http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0524072torture7.jpg)
Firstly ... you really don't know we aren't already.
Secondly ... we already see the rationalization for it.
Thirdly ... that's how things "progress" to such. One small step at a time. You see, it's not really the rationalization that worries me as much as the eventuality that none will be needed one day and it's just accepted without a second thought. That's the death of the American dream. That second thought was one of our forefather's first.
-
Where do we draw the final line on torture?
Though I know you were joking I can't resist the obvious answer.
It's not "on" it. It's before it.
-
Why was this thread started, does anyone really not understand the concepts?
Torturing okay for the Feds? Is waterboarding really torture? Is physical pain induced? Sounds more like fear inducing and maybe discomfort, but not pain. Is that really torture? Does it compare with the techniques used by the Vietnamese at the Hanoi Hilton? How about by the Koreans in the Korean war, or the Japanese in WW2?
Why the "Feds" can do it and not the everyday civilian?
Well, the "Feds" are trying to get important information from an enemy that has declared themselves to be our enemy and has killed American civilians and American servicemen and women, and our continuing their efforts to kill us. How often does the average citizen need to do something like waterboarding to prevent large amounts of killing? (Answer: Never)
Now, if the answer isn't apparent, then I can't help anyone grasp the obvious.
Carry on.
-
Is waterboarding really torture? Is physical pain induced? Sounds more like fear inducing and maybe discomfort, but not pain. Is that really torture? Does it compare with the techniques used by the Vietnamese at the Hanoi Hilton? How about by the Koreans in the Korean war, or the Japanese in WW2?
It's not torturing if we do it, it's just way to gather information :lol
btw I used cig butts on myself; we had a little competition. Sometimes being in the army was pretty boring... :aok
-
It's not torturing if we do it, it's just way to gather information :lol
btw I used cig butts on myself; we had a little competition. Sometimes being in the army was pretty boring... :aok
yah cig butts, blow torch, we are JUST like them :uhoh
-
I believe there's no one here who wouldn't say yes to the most horrendous torture under the right conditions. For example, nukes are set to detonate and kill every last person in your country and one person has info that can prevent this. Who here would spare the electrodes? Examine yourself before casting stones.
-
Does it compare with the techniques used by the Vietnamese at the Hanoi Hilton? How about by the Koreans in the Korean war, or the Japanese in WW2?
By the way .... this is the rationalization I was talking about. It's ok .... by degrees. And over time it gets more ok by more degrees. ;)
-
I believe there's no one here who wouldn't say yes to the most horrendous torture under the right conditions. For example, nukes are set to detonate and kill every last person in your country and one person has info that can prevent this. Who here would spare the electrodes? Examine yourself before casting stones.
We're not talking scenarios or exceptions. We're talking standards. Go back to Lazs' post. As for stoning ... poor policies deserve a quicker death.
-
We're not talking scenarios or exceptions. We're talking standards. Go back to Lazs' post. As for stoning ... poor policies deserve a quicker death.
Standards in time of peace will differ from those in time of war. Just because you and I may be living a life of relative peace does not mean that war is not being waged upon western civilzation. When this war is brought to your neighborhood waterboarding may seem like an excessive kindness.
-
Standards in time of peace will differ from those in time of war. Just because you and I may be living a life of relative peace does not mean that war is not being waged upon western civilzation. When this war is brought to your neighborhood waterboarding may seem like an excessive kindness.
This .... "war" .... has already been brought to "my neighborhood." Just like the war was brought to my grandfather's neigborhood. He would have told you that Americans don't torture. They stop those that do. I feel comfortable speaking for him in that regard.
-
This .... "war" .... has already been brought to "my neighborhood." Just like the war was brought to my grandfather's neigborhood. He would have told you that Americans don't torture. They stop those that do. I feel comfortable speaking for him in that regard.
Sounds nice but it's simply not true. Americans have tortured, probably in every war, though not in the light of day where those without the ability to do what is needed without regard to damage done to their own souls could object.
My late grandfather, who was gassed in WWI, would likely agree that chemical weapons are evil. When it comes down to survival I think most will do whatever it takes.
-
You're still confusing the breaking of policy and law on an individual basis (no matter the "justification")with torture being ok to legalize and condone in general? And you don't see that as a problem? Then you're part of the problem. And I, as an American, will always stand in your way on this.
-
You're still confusing the breaking of policy and law on an individual basis (no matter the "justification")with torture being ok to legalize and condone in general? And you don't see that as a problem? Then you're part of the problem. And I, as an American, will always stand in your way on this.
I'm not confused. We are now much more open than in the past. The secrecy of the past may not even be possible today. I have no problem with waterboarding suspected terrorists.
-
and when the next terrorist attack happens in america arlo will be the first to say, " why didn't the govt DO something to stop it?"
-
My Grandfather stepped up to the plate and did something about it. right now I am sure he is rolling over in his grave.
RTR
-
I have a hard time thinking of waterboarding as torture. I think of it as an interrogation technique that causes no permanent or lasting injury. Some of us are just too damn soft.
-
Hmmm..simulated drowning or blowtorch to my balls...hmmmm. You right Arlo, one's no different than the other (Am I wrong in stating that we do that to our guys in training? ---the waterboarding, that is)
-
My Grandfather stepped up to the plate and did something about it. right now I am sure he is rolling over in his grave.
Im not sure where you intend to go with this but I do know all the Beckwith boys went to war against the Germans and the Japanese and I feel certain that if you told them that by water boarding Germans and Japanese you could save American lives they would have been all for it. Hell, they would have probably insisted on putting bullets into them afterwards just for good measure.
-
Hmmm..simulated drowning or blowtorch to my balls...hmmmm. You right Arlo, one's no different than the other (Am I wrong in stating that we do that to our guys in training? ---the waterboarding, that is)
How about tying you up in a hogtie for a few days? It gets quite uncomfortable very quickly. Or how about a couple of bamboo sticks to tie you onto. Those asians sure had nasty ways of torture with a piece of rope back in the days.
-
I'm not confused. We are now much more open than in the past.
It's ok to mimic the Gestapo as long as we're proud of what we do? Neh, you're still confused. And wrong. That's ok. You really didn't think you got everything right all the time, did you? I don't. But I did this time. I'm not going to let you change my America for your convenience.:)
-
and when the next terrorist attack happens in america arlo will be the first to say, " why didn't the govt DO something to stop it?"
Are you sure I didn't say that the last time? ;) Difference `tween you and me is ...
I know what America is. And I know what torture is. And they don't mix. Go figure. If you like torture, move to China, ya commie. :D
-
I have a hard time thinking of waterboarding as torture. I think of it as an interrogation technique that causes no permanent or lasting injury. Some of us are just too damn soft.
1. Obvious on the first sentence.
2. I'll waterboard you if you got something to prove. But only if you volunteer. You volunteer? I'll keep the questions simple. And verifiable.
:D
-
Hmmm..simulated drowning or blowtorch to my balls...hmmmm. You right Arlo, one's no different than the other (Am I wrong in stating that we do that to our guys in training? ---the waterboarding, that is)
Yeah. Against their will. Over and over. That's how I'd rationalize it if I were too proud and desperate to admit I was wrong about this, too. Or ... maybe not. :D
-
Torturing happens all around the world; there's nothing special in it.
It's just bit funny to see US as a western and civilized country joining amongst those 3:rd world countries and its people so willingly to give in.
-
Im not going to lose sleep over terrorists getting dunked in water......personally.
Only an American could worry about the rights of those bent on annihilating us. :lol
-
I'm pretty sure you're bent on it now. This country was founded on rights. ;)
-
True enough, but it wasn't founded on the rights of Achmed Saheed Skyhook to slaughter women and children---if they want to be treated like real POW's, try wearing a uniform, attacking OTHER people wearing uniforms, and not hiding behind women and children---Rich pretty well states my view--I doubt there is going to be a 'meeting-of-the-minds' on this subject
-
I gotta wonder, maybe a poll or something is in order. I wonder how many of us that condone this tactic really have a horse in this race.
Let me explain.
One of the things that helped fuel anti communist sentiments during the 50's and 60's was the recollection many veterans had of the way the Soviets conducted themselves after the war. The Russian army's record of atrocities committed while moving through Eastern Europe is well documented and the guys on the ground that came into contact with it came away horrified that people could behave that way in victory. More recently we've watched an endless parade of regimes that had one notable attribute in common, torture. And those that have born witness there seem to feel the same way.
They held themselves to a higher standard. Maybe they could empathize with the victims as they were recently in danger of themselves becoming captive, or maybe their values were assaulted. Nonetheless they considered that conduct to be barbaric and un-American.
These are the people we look up to. They paid the price and did the time. Ask them. I'll bet the old guys (and gals) who have earned the right to an opinion will tend towards dignified treatment of captives.
If you want to hold yourself up to a higher standard, you have to.........
Conduct yourself at a higher standard.
-
What I cannot reconcile is the double standard. One one hand they say, we can treat them like this because they are combatives taken from the battlefield, so we can prosecute within the military judicial system. Then on the other hand other hand they say, we will not treat them as enemy military because they are just terrorists, criminals. It's a glaring double standard, and it makes the US look very hypocritical and that we don't respect the rule of law.
The problem is caused by using the military to manage these detainees. The military must operate within the bounds of a very vital code of conduct befitting a country governed by the rule of law.
The CIA by it's nature cannot conform to any code of conduct. The CIA's mission is to operate illegally where and when it must. That's why the need for such secrecy. The CIA alone should manage the detainment of these criminals in secret. We must either treat them as criminals or combatants.
-
Waterboarding is just the latest euphemism for an ancient method of torture. It was invented by the nice and friendly interrogators of the Spanish Inquisition. They called it tortura del agua - water torture, a much more fitting name for it I think. Those of you who think that water torture "causes no permanent or lasting injury" are sadly mistaken and a bit dim if I may be so bold. Water torture can cause lasting physical and psychological damage, and even death. The terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by rapid heart beat and gasping for breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water. Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD.
Waterboarding has been used by the European colonial powers, the Soviets, the Nazis, the North Vietnamese, the Khmer Rouge, the Pinochet regime in Chile, the Japanese in WWII, the Red Chinese, The North Koreans and just about every other evil and brutal regime in modern history. Don't fool yourselves by giving it a new name and not calling it torture. If you really want America to be associated with evildoers and terror regimes then go right ahead. To more and more people around the world the American flag no longer stands for freedom or justice. Several European courts have already ruled that US prisons and treatment of prisoners do not meet the minimum of human rights and thus refuse extradition of prisoners to America.
Is this the way you want the world to think of America? The Stars and Stripes flying next to the Swastika and Hammer and Sickle in the annals of history? I sure don't.
-
If we are at war with a country that tortures our people then we should do the same. You folks that think your taking the high road by not doing so will kill more of your own.
You simply weaken your side because of your personal feelings. War is not a pretty thing... no matter if your on the wining side or the losing side. Decesions have to be made that under other circumstances would be considered cruel and unusual.
I was once asked if I thought my truck was worth shooting and killing a guy for just because he was stealing it. I did not make that determination... the guy stealing the truck made the decision that he thought his life was a decent trade. I was just protecting my belongings.
-
"If we are at war with a country that tortures our people then we should do the same. You folks that think your taking the high road by not doing so will kill more of your own."
This must be the single most silly argument I've read here for a while. Perhaps you should ask your forefathers how many lives freedom and justice is worth. That you want to sell your civility and decency so cheaply is an affront to the sacrifices they made.
-
This must be the single most silly argument I've read here for a while. Perhaps you should ask your forefathers how many lives freedom and justice is worth. That you want to sell your civility and decency so cheaply is an affront to the sacrifices they made.
Can you name one war that was won by using civility and decency?
War is war. It's kill or be killed and the winners are the ones that have the resolve to do whatever it takes to win. Sorry if that does not fit into the nice picture of the ideal world that you imagine.
-
If the terrorists are not US citizens, they have no rights under our law.
Since terrorists are not uniformed members of any countrys army, they have no rights under Geneva Convention.
Do whatever it takes to win.
:aok :aok
-
Yeah, like I said, anyone can be made to confess anything by torturing. However, the reliability of confession gained through torture is questionable.
I'm not sure I believe this particular Mohammed necessarily participated in every terrorist act he's confessed. He was tortured to confess. Either he participated in the attacks or he chose to confess to save himself from being tortured all the time.
how then do you suggest we acquire the needed information sir?
-
"Can you name one war that was one by using civility and decency?"
One? lolz Yes, I can name one war: Gulf War I. The coalition went to great lengths to minimize the horrors of war and to care for the captured and wounded enemy. The war was won easy.
In the words of an American World War II poster, torture is "the method of the enemy."
-
"If the terrorists are not US citizens, they have no rights under our law."
That is simply wrong. All persons no matter what their nationality are subject to US law as long as they are in US jurisdiction. And all persons in US legal jurisdiction must be afforded human rights by the international laws which the US have ratified.
-
how then do you suggest we acquire the needed information sir?
You either get the information trough legal civilized means or you don't. If you can't get the information you take the consequences of your failure and work with what you've got.
-
"Can you name one war that was one by using civility and decency?"
One? lolz Yes, I can name one war: Gulf War I. The coalition went to great lengths to minimize the horrors of war and to care for the captured and wounded enemy. The war was won easy.
In the words of an American World War II poster, torture is "the method of the enemy."
Look up "highway of death" then report back.
War is brutal and the idea is to win at all costs. That's just the way it is.
-
True enough, but it wasn't founded on the rights of Achmed Saheed Skyhook to slaughter women and children---if they want to be treated like real POW's, try wearing a uniform, attacking OTHER people wearing uniforms, and not hiding behind women and children---Rich pretty well states my view--I doubt there is going to be a 'meeting-of-the-minds' on this subject
Apparently not.
So keep spinning straw. You could have just as easily posted that it wasn't founded on the rights of domestic murderers, rapists, robbers and drug addicts .... for that matter speeders, wife-beaters and those who don't pay their taxes ... so why even bother with a public defender or a trial because:
a: They're all guilty
b: You never are
Your view is that civilized law has had it's day and should die. Mine is .... what America did you grow up in?
-
We've been down this road before but what the heck. Terrorists are not enemy soldiers. They are more like spies than anything else. I suppose some of you feel hanging is way out of line also? Maybe we oughta give 'em a choice? Hanging or waterboarding. Which would you pick?
-
If we are at war with a country that tortures our people then we should do the same. You folks that think your taking the high road by not doing so will kill more of your own.
You simply weaken your side because of your personal feelings. War is not a pretty thing... no matter if your on the wining side or the losing side. Decesions have to be made that under other circumstances would be considered cruel and unusual.
I was once asked if I thought my truck was worth shooting and killing a guy for just because he was stealing it. I did not make that determination... the guy stealing the truck made the decision that he thought his life was a decent trade. I was just protecting my belongings.
One of the oddest comparisons I've ever heard unless you caught him, tied him up and dunked him repeatedly in your bathtub without calling the cops before you shot him.
You've got it backwards anyway. Not conforming to the broken morals of an enemy is not weakness, it's strength. And it's been a long-time American trait and tradition. If I have anything to say about it, it will continue to be.
Carry on.
-
We've been down this road before but what the heck. Terrorists are not enemy soldiers. They are more like spies than anything else. I suppose some of you feel hanging is way out of line also? Maybe we oughta give 'em a choice? Hanging or waterboarding. Which would you pick?
Doesn't matter what they are. You don't torture someone in custody! Can you get that? Himmler couldn't either. ;)
-
Can you name one war that was won by using civility and decency?
Well hell then ... can you name one that was won on purely the merits of torture?
-
how then do you suggest we acquire the needed information sir?
We've been aquiring needed information without torture for years now. Welcome to the nineteenth century ... up to the twenty-first. :)
-
Well hell then ... can you name one that was won on purely the merits of torture?
I'd bet my life that all nations that have ever won a war used torture and any other thing they could dream of in order to win.
That's just real life.
-
War is brutal and the idea is to win at all costs. That's just the way it is.
No, it isn't. All costs has never meant succumbing to methods that threaten the very American idealism this nation was founded on. Many an American died in battle saving someone else from the attrocities you claim are a necessary evil. Those Americans didn't seem to think so.
-
I can't believe people are actually defending torture.
Sad .. really.
-
I'd bet my life that all nations that have ever won a war used torture and any other thing they could dream of in order to win.
That's just real life.
Real life is that if torture, for any reason, is given judicial sanction in this nation then it stops being the America I grew up in. Rationalize it all you want. I'm against you.
-
No, it isn't. All costs has never meant succumbing to methods that threaten the very American idealism this nation was founded on. Many an American died in battle saving someone else from the attrocities you claim are a necessary evil. Those Americans didn't seem to think so.
Really? War is war and to win a war, you have to do anything it takes. Like firebombing Japanese and German civilians by the hundreds of thousands....and dropping atomic bombs. That's the kind of things that were needed to win your current freedom.
Like it or not, the world has always been ruled by absolute force.
-
I can't believe people are actually defending torture.
Sad .. really.
Maybe you would think differently if it meant the differnce between life and death for your family.
-
Really? War is war and to win a war, you have to do anything it takes. Like firebombing Japanese and German civilians by the hundreds of thousands....and dropping atomic bombs. That's the kind of things that were needed to win your current freedom.
Like it or not, the world has always been ruled by absolute force.
Spoken like a true Fascist, Nuke. Think about it.
-
Maybe you would think differently if it meant the differnce between life and death for your family.
You're watching waaaaaaaaaay too much 24.
-
Look up "highway of death" then report back.
War is brutal and the idea is to win at all costs. That's just the way it is.
Killing enemy soldiers, even from afar, is not indecent and certainly not uncivilized, no matter how defenseless they are. Torturing captured enemy soldiers, criminals or whoever is indecent and uncivilized no matter how you rationalize it. The sole super power of this world should not need to use such methods to win against third-world nations or a ragtag band of terrorists. Every time I visit this forum and read opinions like yours I'm reminded of just how completely the terrorists have won. Hitler couldn't do it. Hirohito couldn't either. Nor could the once mighty Soviet Union. But a small band of determined fanatics have managed to turn most Americans into a fearful heard of sheep, obsessed with protecting themselves from an almost negligible threat to their lives; now willing to become monsters and drag the rest of their nation down with them. Congrats Osama.
-
Spoken like a true Fascist, Nuke. Think about it.
Just stating cold hard facts.
When ANY nation goes to a war of survival, they will do whatever it takes to win. If you are a nation in a war for survival and you take away any of your options, then you are just being foolish.
-
Killing enemy soldiers, even from afar, is not indecent and certainly not uncivilized, no matter how defenseless they are.
So you are okay with killing, but you have a problem with waterboarding, which causes no harm?
-
Just stating cold hard facts.
When ANY nation goes to a war of survival, they will do whatever it takes to win. If you are a nation in a war for survival and you take away any of your options, then you are just being foolish.
Yet reality is the realization that this nation has never had to rely on torture to win anything ... no matter how many theoretical examples of it's use you provide. Nor does it now. You're just being ridiculous. :D
-
So you are okay with killing, but you have a problem with waterboarding, which causes no harm?
You so don't get that and it's painfully obvious. :)
-
Some just don't have the stomach to do what it takes to survive. If you're going to hamstring those who do just remember it's your own damn fault when you lose everything.
-
You so don't get that and it's painfully obvious. :)
Well, lets try to understand each other then.
I think that in a war, killing all enemies is okay. What do you think?
-
Yet reality is the realization that this nation has never had to rely on torture to win anything ... no matter how many theoretical examples of it's use you provide. Nor does it now. You're just being ridiculous. :D
So you are saying we never tortured anyone? Then what is the problem? We don't torture, we just a-bomb.
That's what you are saying. Makes me laugh.
-
Instead of water boarding terrorists, we should just nuke all of Iraq. Then Arlo would never have a complaint about torture.
-
So you are okay with killing, but you have a problem with waterboarding, which causes no harm?
First of all let me repeat: Water torture does cause harm. If you think otherwise I suggest you try it.
Second: Yes Nuke, if you have to kill someone do it, but do it as humanly as is practically possible. Don't make people suffer if you can avoid it, even the enemy, and even if the enemy is not so generous. If you capture a terrorist on the field of battle that you are within your rights to execute him for his crimes, but not to torture him. I know you don't get this, and that's sad.
-
First of all let me repeat: Water torture does cause harm. If you think otherwise I suggest you try it.
Second: Yes Nuke, if you have to kill someone do it, but do it as humanly as is practically possible. Don't make people suffer if you can avoid it, even the enemy, and even if the enemy is not so generous. If you capture a terrorist on the field of battle that you are within your rights to execute him for his crimes, but not to torture him. I know you don't get this, and that's sad.
So killing someone is okay, but making them suffer for a bit is just inhumane?
So if I capture a terrorist on the field of battle, I can execute him and that's okay with you? I just can't water board him?
That's funny! :)
-
Well, lets try to understand each other then.
I think that in a war, killing all enemies is okay. What do you think?
I think the rules of the Geneva convention were formed to prevent war atrocity and abuse of those taken into custody, giving them protection under the law until tried and possibly convicted.
Do we understand each other now? :D
-
So you are saying we never tortured anyone? Then what is the problem? We don't torture, we just a-bomb.
That's what you are saying. Makes me laugh.
No ... what I'm saying is we don't have to do everything the enemy does to defeat them. Your thinking process is just a bit simplistic in that regard. You're not the only one laughing. :lol
-
I think the rules of the Geneva convention were formed to prevent war atrocity and abuse of those taken into custody, giving them protection under the law until tried and possibly convicted.
Do we understand each other now? :D
As long as you understand that the Geneva conventions never mattered to anyone other than the "good" guys. Geneva convention rules only slowed down the good guys. The bad guys never followed them and never will.
Now do we understand each other?
-
Some just don't have the stomach to do what it takes to survive. If you're going to hamstring those who do just remember it's your own damn fault when you lose everything.
Perfect example of frightened sheep syndrome. How many Americans have been killed by terrorism in America compare to say ... food poisoning?
"do what it takes to survive." I'd almost laugh if it was just you. Unfortunately a lot of Americans are just as deluded as you. My survival tip to you would be to smell your food before you eat it.
-
Perfect example of frightened sheep syndrome. How many Americans have been killed in America compare to say ... food poisoning?
"do what it takes to survive." I'd almost laugh if it was just you. Unfortunately a lot of Americans are just as deluded as you.
yeah? What does food poisoning have to do with war and a nations survival?
In a war, you do whatever it takes to win. It's really that simple.
-
As long as you understand that the Geneva conventions never mattered to anyone other than the "good" guys. Geneva convention rules only slowed down the good guys. The bad guys never followed them and never will.
Now do we understand each other?
I understand you're wrong. They apply to all and are used equally to convict as protect. We signed it. Doesn'y matter who didn't. We agreed to abide. And that doesn't mean looking for a loophole to "win a war through torture."
-
yeah? What does food poisoning have to do with war and a nations survival?
In a war, you do whatever it takes to win. It's really that simple.
What does terrorism have to do with war? Nothing.
-
So killing someone is okay, but making them suffer for a bit is just inhumane?
So if I capture a terrorist on the field of battle, I can execute him and that's okay with you? I just can't water board him?
That's funny! :)
Like I said: I know you won't get it, and that's sad.
-
What does terrorism have to do with war? Nothing.
Tell that to all of the 911 victims
-
Like I said: I know you won't get it, and that's sad.
Yeah, it's sad. You say that if someone is captured in battle, then I am within my rights to "execute" them. That in it self is against the Geneva conventions. Yet you say that waterboarding that same person is bad.
What gives?
-
do not torture terrorists, just chop off their heads and send the tape to al jazeera.
i prefer the Genghis Khan method of diplomacy, swear allegiance to me or die.
John, you and a bunch of other past and recent bad'uns would get on famously.
-
Tell that to all of the 911 victims
If I could talk to the dead I could ask a lot of other people too. What's the difference between being murdered by a religious fanatic or being murdered by some other criminal? What's the difference?
-
If I could talk to the dead I could ask a lot of other people too. What's the difference between being murdered by a religious fanatic or being murdered by some other criminal? What's the difference?
Would you rather have a family member "water boarded", or "executed"?
I rest my case.
-
Yeah, it's sad. You say that if someone is captured in battle, then I am within my rights to "execute" them. That in it self is against the Geneva conventions. Yet you say that waterboarding that same person is bad.
What gives?
No it is not against the Geneva Conventions to execute combatants who do not adhere to the rules of war. In fact it is explicitly allowed to execute anyone who does not wage civilized warfare. Torture on the other hand is explicitly forbidden and if you are caught doing it you have forfeit any protection the Geneva Conventions could have offered you, and have made yourself subject to summary execution.
-
Would you rather have a family member "water boarded", or "executed"?
I rest my case.
You don't rest, you evade. Answer the question: What's the difference between being murdered by a religious fanatic or being murdered by some other criminal? What's the difference?
-
Would you rather have a family member "water boarded", or "executed"?
I rest my case.
Let's see.. executed now or waterboarded for 5 years which after executed (if hasn't committed suicide before that).
-
is waterboarding illegal? If so, where and by whom is it determined to be illegal?
-
No it is not against the Geneva Conventions to execute combatants who do not adhere to the rules of war. In fact it is explicitly allowed to execute anyone who does not wage civilized warfare. Torture on the other hand is explicitly forbidden and if you are caught doing it you have forfeit any protection the Geneva Conventions could have offered you, and have made yourself subject to summary execution.
Except that Al Qaeda is not a legally constituted military arm of a signatory nation to the Geneva conventions. Therefor the Geneva Convention is irrelevant.
-
It's not like someone is doggy paddling with cinder blocks tied to their legs....
wait I may be on to something here.... never mind.
If getting information from someone bent for 70 virgins by getting them to pass air bubbles in the shallow end of life instead of doing the "Allah Ahkba" crap with explosives strapped to them... then Hell go for it.
The mess is easier to clean up anyways.
-
What's the big deal? Looks like fun to me. :P
(http://www.campspecialists.com/images/waterboard3.jpg)
-
do suicide bombers suffer from PTSD?
-
do suicide bombers suffer from PTSD?
Those few that survive no doubt do :uhoh
-
Some just don't have the stomach to do what it takes to survive.
Sieg Heil! I think I like your way of thinking :)
-
Sieg Heil! I think I like your way of thinking :)
Godwin's Law invoked you lose.
-
Sieg Heil! I think I like your way of thinking :)
This from a clown calling himself "brownshirt". Who brags about burning people with cigarettes. Go figure.
-
You don't rest, you evade. Answer the question: What's the difference between being murdered by a religious fanatic or being murdered by some other criminal? What's the difference?
Sorry, I did miss this one.
Being murdered is being murdered. No difference. I agree with you.
Now can you answer my question?
Would you rather have your family executed or water-boarded?
-
Sieg Heil! I think I like your way of thinking :)
Don't sweat it. Someone will be on watch tonight and the next night while you sleep comfortably in the land of freedomtakenforgranted.
-
Interesting the position we take based on what we perceive what 'we' do and what 'they' do regarding torture.
Taking a prisoner against his will to let him believe that he will die unless he gives up information whether he knows the answer(s) or not.
Torture is defined by not only the physical but also the mental pain inflicted.
Is racking the bolt back of an AK-47 and pointed to the prisoner's head, then pulling the trigger considered torture?
The prisoner thinks he is going to die right up until there is no 'bang', but a 'click'.
Same for the prisoner that is made to think he will die by drowning unless he answers some questions.
It does not matter what the interrogators think but what the prisoner does regarding torture.
Torture is used from those that are guessing to the guilt of the suspects.
Salem witch hunts. Spanish Inquisition. Nazi Germany. Just a sample of victims of torture that were forced to confess things they were not guilty of. This from the worst type of torture.
We cannot demand of our enemies to not torture our own if we do practice torture. rather hypocritical.
-
I don't see the advocates of torture making such demands. I don't think they really care. I even suspect they have a morbid desire to see torture more widespread and universal ... as long as they think they can avoid it personally. Sadder still is, throughout their stages of denial of torture being torture, justifying torture as being tit for tat (therefore perfectly acceptable) and claiming torture is the only practical way to gain accurate information they seem oblivious to the world they're creating for their children. Generations following this one may not be so lucky to live in an America of rights against such things as torture if thier "parental role-models" manage to make it an accepted practice and paint it red white and blue in doing so (not that the world they leave for them to deal with has ever been a real concern). It'd be nice if they would take care to exemplify the characteristics of one who doesn't have the tendencies of promoting (perhaps secretly enjoying) the idea of torturing anyone ... no matter how much they're desperately afraid of them.
Of course .... then there's their labeling others as fascists or communists on a whim to make a point. Heaven help anyone who shines a mirror back without a "Godwin! You lose!" whine erupting. Yeah ... hypocricy be their way. :D
-
Is racking the bolt back of an AK-47 and pointed to the prisoner's head, then pulling the trigger considered torture?
The prisoner thinks he is going to die right up until there is no 'bang', but a 'click'.
This has been quite popular form of torture. People have been tortured by letting them think they've been sentenced to death and after that they've been released just prior to the execution or they've been shot at with blanks in a fake execution. Some people have died of heart attack in the fake executions.
How's that for mental torture?
-
As long as you understand that the Geneva conventions never mattered to anyone other than the "good" guys. Geneva convention rules only slowed down the good guys. The bad guys never followed them and never will.
Now do we understand each other?
The fact that the convention rules don't matter to the bad guys does not, and should not be an invitation to the good guys to feel free to break those rules. Things that we as a society deem evil, continue to be evil whether our enemies do it or we do it ourselves. Torture is evil. <---period
-
Salem witch hunts. Spanish Inquisition. Nazi Germany.
so now waterboarding 3 terrorists is the same as "Salem witch hunts. Spanish Inquisition. Nazi Germany".
thats quite a stretch.
the enemy is right, america is too soft to win this war.
-
so now waterboarding 3 terrorists is the same as "Salem witch hunts. Spanish Inquisition. Nazi Germany".
thats quite a stretch.
the enemy is right, america is too soft to win this war.
That's how it begins. Totalitarism that is. Soon it is no more 3 terrorists but 30000 assumed terrorists. Besides, I really doubt waterboarding has been only used on 3 terrorists - that's just the cases they've let us know about.
-
Sorry, I did miss this one.
Being murdered is being murdered. No difference. I agree with you.
Now can you answer my question?
Would you rather have your family executed or water-boarded?
Depends on the family member. Some I'd like to have executed, and one I wouldn't mind to see tortured a bit first. However, even if I have my own personal violent desires and depravities does not mean that I want my government to have them too. Just because I would like to kill someone with my bare hands does not mean I want my government to kill people. Just because I very well might resort to torturing someone if the circumstances were desperate enough does not mean I want my government to torture people. Secrecy is the enemy of democracy, and a powerful government is the enemy of freedom. I like to be free.
Oh, and btw. I'd like to torture you a bit too. I'd like to pour water down your breathing passages until you cry for mercy, then I'd continue some more to ensure a lasting impression (read: claustrophobia, aquaphobia, anxiety attacks and depression). Just to force you to understand that "waterboarding" is torture. However I wouldn't want your government to do so to you. :)
-
Depends on the family member. Some I'd like to have executed, and one I wouldn't mind to see tortured a bit first. However, even if I have my own personal violent desires and depravities does not mean that I want my government to have them too. Just because I would like to kill someone with my bare hands does not mean I want my government to kill people. Just because I very well might resort to torturing someone if the circumstances were desperate enough does not mean I want my government to torture people. Secrecy is the enemy of democracy, and a powerful government is the enemy of freedom. I like to be free.
Oh, and btw. I'd like to torture you a bit too. I'd like to pour water down your breathing passages until you cry for mercy, then I'd continue some more to ensure a lasting impression (read: claustrophobia, aquaphobia, anxiety attacks and depression). Just to force you to understand that "waterboarding" is torture. However I wouldn't want your government to do so to you. :)
Do I get to wear my rubber outfit?
Well Lumpy, I never said that I didn't think waterboarding is not a form of torture. I don't think they actually put water down your nose though, I have heard that they put some plastic over the face and then pour water. I'm really not sure though.
Hear is my view:
If we catch enemy combatants on the battlefield (or capture them in any other way) who are out to kill Americans, and if by waterboarding them we can save American lives, I want our government to be able to do it. I don't think it was ever intended to be used on civilians.
If we are fighting an actual enemy army that is following the geneva convention rules of war, then not. But when we catch these bastards that are running around in bathrobes and trying to attack and kill Americans, I don't care what we do to them really.
Maybe that's wrong, but that is my view of it.
-
So Nuke, you don't think "it was ever intended to be used on civilians"? Strange then that the three people we know it has been used on were civilians. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was taken from a friend's home in Rawalpindi, Pakistan by Pakistani secret police and handed over to US authorities. He is a civilian. Zein al-Abideen Mohamed Hussein was taken from his two-story apartment in Faisalabad, Pakistan by CIA operatives. He is a civilian. Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri was arrested in the United Arab Emirates and turned over to US authorities. All are terrorists and criminals, but none of them were captured on any battlefield (though Hussein made a fight of it in his home and was shot three times).
No Nuke, what we're talking about here is dragging people out of their homes in the middle of the night, wishing them away to some clandestine prison and torturing them without trial or justice. So far only bad people have been taken (I hope). So far.
-
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
According to the 9/11 Commission Report he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks". He is also thought to have had, or has confessed to, a role in many of the most significant terrorist plots over the last twenty years, including the World Trade Center 1993 bombings, the Operation Bojinka plot, an aborted 2002 attack on Los Angeles' U.S. Bank Tower, the Bali nightclub bombings, the failed bombing of American Airlines Flight 63, the Millennium Plot, and the murder of Daniel Pearl.
He is an enemy combatant who planned attacks that have killed Americans. He's about as much a civilian as Bin Laden is. I say torture him. By the way, the waterboarding he received did make him reveal information that helped thwart further attacks, from what we are told that is.
I didn't feel like looking the other two up, but I'd guess they have a similar rap. I don't feel bad that they where waterboarded. Not in the least.
-
It seems you don't understand what civilian means. Unfortunately not surprising.
-
anyone who refers to KSM as a civilian is someone who needs to be monitored, imo.
-
Then you need to monitor me and most other people I guess.
-
"If we are at war with a country that tortures our people then we should do the same. You folks that think your taking the high road by not doing so will kill more of your own."
This must be the single most silly argument I've read here for a while. Perhaps you should ask your forefathers how many lives freedom and justice is worth. That you want to sell your civility and decency so cheaply is an affront to the sacrifices they made.
My forefathers quit standing in line and shooting volley after volley at the british. They took cover and picked the brits off while the brits were standing in a nice line. My forefathers also hit the brits while the brits moved from one battlefield to another. I think I stand in good with my forefathers. They did what had to be done to get the job done.
The people having their heads chopped off are mostly civilians. The one's doing the chopping are combatants. If one of these folks chops your relative's head off... are you going to offer him a sandwich and ask how the weather is? I don't understand your high and mighty "civility" at the expense of others. War is not pretty or civil.
-
My forefathers quit standing in line and shooting volley after volley at the british. They took cover and picked the brits off while the brits were standing in a nice line. My forefathers also hit the brits while the brits moved from one battlefield to another. I think I stand in good with my forefathers. They did what had to be done to get the job done.
So you think anything is acceptable? Do you think the terrorists are just doing what has to be done "to get the job done", and think it is acceptable?
Yes your forefathers may have been considered the terrorists of their day, but did they torture the British? Every schoolchild knows that Gen. George Washington made extraordinary efforts to protect America's civilian population from the ravages of war. Fewer Americans know that Revolutionary War leaders, including Washington and the Continental Congress, considered the decent treatment of prisoners to be one of the principal strategic preoccupations of the American Revolution.
Historian David Hackett Fischer wrote in Washington's Crossing: "In 1776 American leaders believed it was not enough to win the war. They also had to win in a way that was consistent with the values of their society and the principles of their cause. One of their greatest achievements … was to manage the war in a manner that was true to the expanding humanitarian ideals of the American Revolution."
You may think you stand in good with your forefathers, but I don't think they would have stood with you if they were here. You people have lost your way.
-
I dont care to monitor you. Im not qulaified to do so anyway, that would be a job for professionals. Also, if you think "most people" consider KSM and his band of organized mass murderers civilians then you are dead off plumb. Civilians are people who follow civil life, not a life of premeditated mass murder OF civilians.
-
Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
Water boarding is torture and should not be used. Don't we have drugs that make people more....pliable...to questioning?
Strange then that the three people we know it has been used on were civilians. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was taken from a friend's home in Rawalpindi, Pakistan by Pakistani secret police and handed over to US authorities. He is a civilian. Zein al-Abideen Mohamed Hussein was taken from his two-story apartment in Faisalabad, Pakistan by CIA operatives. He is a civilian. Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri was arrested in the United Arab Emirates and turned over to US authorities. All are terrorists and criminals, but none of them were captured on any battlefield (though Hussein made a fight of it in his home and was shot three times).
I believe those three would be classified as unlawful combatants or unprivileged combatants, if they can even be classified. The Geneva Conventions only apply to Nation States, they do not apply to organizations such as the PLO or Al-Qaeada. To say they are civilians is rather absurd. They wage war against *the infidels* and *The Great Satan*.
-
I dont care to monitor you. Im not qulaified to do so anyway, that would be a job for professionals. Also, if you think "most people" consider KSM and his band of organized mass murderers civilians then you are dead off plumb. Civilians are people who follow civil life, not a life of premeditated mass murder OF civilians.
Your definition would exclude anyone who commits a crime. That's ludicrous. The Merriam-Webster English dictionary defines a civilian as "a specialist in Roman or modern civil law" or "one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force". Under international humanitarian law a civilian is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces. The International Committee of the Red Cross 1958 Commentary on IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War Article 4.4 states that "[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law." The ICRC has expressed the opinion that "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents. They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".
"If civilians directly engage in hostilities" ... Civilians.
-
I believe those three would be classified as unlawful combatants or unprivileged combatants, if they can even be classified. The Geneva Conventions only apply to Nation States, they do not apply to organizations such as the PLO or Al-Qaeada. To say they are civilians is rather absurd. They wage war against *the infidels* and *The Great Satan*.
Se my previous post. Unlawful combatants or unprivileged combatants are civilians ... That's what makes them unlawful or unprivileged! Just like a criminal is also a civilian, even if he is unlawful.
-
Se my previous post. Unlawful combatants or unprivileged combatants are civilians ... That's what makes them unlawful or unprivileged! Just like a criminal is also a civilian, even if he is unlawful.
We can look at all of the definitions we want and by English definitions those guys are civilians. However if we look outside the box and see what they call themselves, look at their actions and see what they do, they are soldiers of the Jihad. We need new definitions for these guys, new classifications under International Law.
I do not consider them civilians in any sense of the term.
-
Lumpy,
Which advocacy organisation are you shilling for? Your responses read like advocacy responses on other boards. The kind from volunteers and interns who's job is to do searches for key words on blogs so they can tie up opponents of their groups positions in hopes of shutting down unfavorable discorce.
-
no reasonable person would argue that KSM is a civilian regardless of what variation of the definition you choose to employ. Again, no REASONABLE person.
-
No reasonable person would advocate torture either. It doesn't matter who or what he is, still wrong.
-
We can look at all of the definitions we want and by English definitions those guys are civilians. However if we look outside the box and see what they call themselves, look at their actions and see what they do, they are soldiers of the Jihad. We need new definitions for these guys, new classifications under International Law.
I do not consider them civilians in any sense of the term.
Hah, yes you need to "look outside the box" (or more precisely outside the law) to find justification for what America is doing. People like "these guys" have existed since the dawn of time, but no other civilized country seems to have any problems dealing with terrorists within the framework of civil law. Even the Russians manage to drag the terrorists to court, and even after the terrorists murdered their children. Why do we need new definitions for criminals all of a sudden? How hard can it be to convict mass murderers in a court of law? You people even have the death penalty, so what's the problem?
How is an AQ planner/leader any different from Charles Manson who planned all those murders? He called himself a child of Satan, a child of God; should the authorities have taken his self proclaimed divinity into account when dealing with him? If not, why should we care what AQ members call themselves?
Yeah, you need to look outside the box alright. Far outside.
-
Lumpy,
Which advocacy organisation are you shilling for? Your responses read like advocacy responses on other boards. The kind from volunteers and interns who's job is to do searches for key words on blogs so they can tie up opponents of their groups positions in hopes of shutting down unfavorable discorce.
I don't work for any organization. And if you haven't noticed I am the person providing the "unfavorable discorce[sic]" in this thread.
So ... what advocacy organization do you work for?
-
No reasonable person would advocate torture either. It doesn't matter who or what he is, still wrong.
I am reasonable and I advocate the use of tickling. Is that torture?
-
Hah, yes you need to "look outside the box" (or more precisely outside the law) to find justification for what America is doing. People like "these guys" have existed since the dawn of time, but no other civilized country seems to have any problems dealing with terrorists within the framework of civil law. Even the Russians manage to drag the terrorists to court, and even after the terrorists murdered their children. Why do we need new definitions for criminals all of a sudden? How hard can it be to convict mass murderers in a court of law? You people even have the death penalty, so what's the problem?
How is an AQ planner/leader any different from Charles Manson who planned all those murders? He called himself a child of Satan, a child of God; should the authorities have taken his self proclaimed divinity into account when dealing with him? If not, why should we care what AQ members call themselves?
Yeah, you need to look outside the box alright. Far outside.
Lumpy you not from the U.S. then?
I read on many blogs about this and other issues. Since these issues have social\political outcomes often at the voting booth, shills show up from groups to try and influence perception and in some cases to disrupt discorce by taking over the thread. They have a tendancy to sound eriudite and well educated and reasonable like yourself until the thread is so far in that it's hijackable. These groups have staffers whos job are to search blogs and hijack threads. Torture and the 2nd amendmant are current big issues. And yes more often these are democrat\liberal\progressive leaning organisations here in the U.S.
-
anyone who refers to KSM as a civilian is someone who needs to be monitored, imo.
Spoken like a true communist or fascist. Do we get a Godwin whine amen? ;)
-
Everytime I hear of this "waterboarding" BS I always hear in the background Bill Cosby's voice doing that "Noah, How long can you tread water?"
Then I LMAO!
The dipchits can decapitate, stone to death or blow themselves and those around up and you whine about a lil water up the nose?
I say use a dam fire hose during waterboarding peel some faces back.
Mac
-
Spoken like a true communist or fascist. Do we get a Godwin whine amen? ;)
How many times do you call people fascists? Give it a rest.
-
Good God your using the Russians as examples of civil Law? :lol Hey I got an Idea, type "chechnya atrocities" into a search engine and see what bounces back. And the terrorists they captured after Belsan? Can you imagine what medicine they caught from the Russian military Police afterwards? :rofl I bet they were on their knees begging to be drowned by Americans.
Hah, yes you need to "look outside the box" (or more precisely outside the law) to find justification for what America is doing. People like "these guys" have existed since the dawn of time, but no other civilized country seems to have any problems dealing with terrorists within the framework of civil law. Even the Russians manage to drag the terrorists to court, and even after the terrorists murdered their children. Why do we need new definitions for criminals all of a sudden? How hard can it be to convict mass murderers in a court of law? You people even have the death penalty, so what's the problem?
How is an AQ planner/leader any different from Charles Manson who planned all those murders? He called himself a child of Satan, a child of God; should the authorities have taken his self proclaimed divinity into account when dealing with him? If not, why should we care what AQ members call themselves?
Yeah, you need to look outside the box alright. Far outside.
-
Lumpy you not from the U.S. then?
I read on many blogs about this and other issues. Since these issues have social\political outcomes often at the voting booth, shills show up from groups to try and influence perception and in some cases to disrupt discorce by taking over the thread. They have a tendancy to sound eriudite and well educated and reasonable like yourself until the thread is so far in that it's hijackable. These groups have staffers whos job are to search blogs and hijack threads. Torture and the 2nd amendmant are current big issues. And yes more often these are democrat\liberal\progressive leaning organisations here in the U.S.
I have tried to avoid this since I don't want to be put in the proverbial box with a label on it, but that was a dead giveaway I guess. Yes, I'm not American. Do you think these "shills" would care to visit our little corner of the internet, a WWII flightsim board? In any case, thank you for your compliments on how I "sound".
-
Hah, yes you need to "look outside the box" (or more precisely outside the law) to find justification for what America is doing. People like "these guys" have existed since the dawn of time, but no other civilized country seems to have any problems dealing with terrorists within the framework of civil law. Even the Russians manage to drag the terrorists to court, and even after the terrorists murdered their children. Why do we need new definitions for criminals all of a sudden? How hard can it be to convict mass murderers in a court of law? You people even have the death penalty, so what's the problem?
How is an AQ planner/leader any different from Charles Manson who planned all those murders? He called himself a child of Satan, a child of God; should the authorities have taken his self proclaimed divinity into account when dealing with him? If not, why should we care what AQ members call themselves?
Yeah, you need to look outside the box alright. Far outside.
At no point have I advocated the use of torture. The rest of that.....well.....who knows where you came up with that. I'm a reasonable person and I don't believe for one second that the Russians treated their terrorist prisoners very well.
-
Good God your using the Russians as examples of civil Law? :lol Hey I got an Idea, type "chechnya atrocities" into a search engine and see what bounces back. And the terrorists they captured after Belsan? Can you imagine what medicine they caught from the Russian military Police afterwards? :rofl I bet they were on their knees begging to be drowned by Americans.
The sole surviving terrorist, Nur-Pashi Kulayev, got his day in court. Which is more than he would have got in America.
In May 2005, Kulayev was a defendant in a court in the republic of North Ossetia. He was charged with murder, terrorism, kidnapping, and other crimes and pleaded guilty on seven of the counts. Ten days later, on May 26, 2005, he was sentenced to life in prison; no appeal was filed by either the defendant or prosecutor.
He partook in a terrorist act that killed more than 380 Russians including 156 children and wounded more than 780 people ... and they didn't even kill him for it.
-
The sole surviving terrorist, Nur-Pashi Kulayev, got his day in court. Which is more than he would have got in America.
In May 2005, Kulayev was a defendant in a court in the republic of North Ossetia. He was charged with murder, terrorism, kidnapping, and other crimes and pleaded guilty on seven of the counts. Ten days later, on May 26, 2005, he was sentenced to life in prison; no appeal was filed by either the defendant or prosecutor.
He partook in a terrorist act that killed more than 380 Russians including 156 children and wounded more than 780 people ... and they didn't even kill him for it.
Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal building in Oklahoma killing 168 people, women and children included. He got a fair trial ....his "day in court"
-
Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal building in Oklahoma killing 168 people, women and children included. He got a fair trial ....his "day in court"
Sure, but he was an American citizen, not a foreign terrorist like Kulayev who was Chechen. Double standards and all... McVeigh wasn't even charged with terrorism.
-
Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal building in Oklahoma killing 168 people, women and children included. He got a fair trial ....his "day in court"
Timothy McVeigh will never have the chance to escape and kill again......can't say the same for Mr. Kulayev.
-
It seems you don't understand what civilian means. Unfortunately not surprising.
you don't understand what war means. Unfortunately not surprising.
-
Have you been in a war John?
-
Have you been in a war John?
we are all in a war right now, a war of survival, thats what you don't understand.
-
Heh... kinda funny to compare Beslan's murderers handling in russia to detainees US is keeping in Guantanamo:
Russians have already convicted the terrorists but US... well:
About 800 detainees have been kept in Gitmo, of those 485 have been released (some after years of imprisonment) without charges.
3 has been charged and 1 (that's one) has been convicted.
Is there any possibilities to fk up human rights worse than that? Heck even Russians have handled the situation better than US and knowing that country it's pretty amazing. OR perhaps it's amazing how badly US have taken care of that issue.
-
we are all in a war right now, a war of survival, thats what you don't understand.
How old are you?
-
How old are you?
too old for you, besides i'm heterosexual, that means i don't date guys.
-
Lumpy if you think what the US is doing now is bad for the poor terrorists, just wait until the next 911 hits us. I have a feeling the gloves will officially be off then.
I think we should have put those 3 guys that received water-boarding on Pay Per View television. It would help pay for the hassle we had to go through to capture those animals.
-
we are all in a war right now, a war of survival, thats what you don't understand.
That is the new most silly argument I've read here. Terrorism has been around for ages and is certainly nothing new for Europeans, Africans, and Asians. That America got a particularly rude wake-up call back in 2001 doesn't change anything, except perhaps prove that Americans really are the most hysterical people on Earth. I've been involved with two acts of terrorism. The first time I was one of those charged with preventing/containing it, the second time I was one of the potential victims. I do not consider myself at war with anyone, nor does the vast majority of my countrymen, or the world for that matter. The so called War on Terror is a farce. It is no more a war than the so called War on Drugs or the War on Cancer. It is a deliberate misuse of the word to create fear and submission. You use it here in the same way by trying to justify unjustifiable acts simply because you're at "war". You're not at war, nor is terrorism a threat to your survival. Trust me, in a US court of law I could be declared an expert witness on both. If you're worried about survival my tip would be to eat healthy and regular exercise, terrorism is a negligible threat to your life. :)
Goodnight all. <S>
-
so who is lumpy? No doubt he has been through the revolving door more than once.
-
How many times do you call people fascists? Give it a rest.
How many times can they express themselves like one. Give it a rest yourownself! :D
-
you don't understand what war means. Unfortunately not surprising.
Because anyone who doesn't think torture is the road to victory obviously can't understand what war is? Hmmm ... how Orwellian.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oxelLtVhwk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture
-
we are all in a war right now, a war of survival, thats what you don't understand.
And though he could not answer yes he rationalized it so.
-
And though he could not answer yes he rationalized it so.
here's a warm gingersnap, arlo.
nite.
-
Off topic.
To Lumpy and Brownshirt. Skuzzy has pardoned all the PNGed. Feel free to step out of the shade. ;)
-
here's a warm gingersnap, arlo.
nite.
Thanks, Doogie! (More an Oreo guy but ... I never turn down free offered in a friendly way.) :D
-
so who is lumpy? No doubt he has been through the revolving door more than once.
I'm a blue moose can't you tell? And for obvious reasons I hate revolving doors!
-
I suppose it'll always be easy for some to condemn those who provide for their liberty while sitting in the comfort and safety also provided by those they vilify. I'd like to blame it on modern education but it's probably been the same throughout the ages.
-
I suppose it'll always be easy for some to condemn those who provide for their liberty while sitting in the comfort and safety also provided by those they vilify. I'd like to blame it on modern education but it's probably been the same throughout the ages.
(http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/specialengagements/afewgoodmenjacktruth.JPG)
"Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."
;)
-
Yeah Ill bet that Russian court was like an old Perry Mason episode. :lol
Hey, did they read em Miranda? :lol
Let me guess. Russia has a 100% conviction rate for terrorism? :lol
Heh... kinda funny to compare Beslan's murderers handling in russia to detainees US is keeping in Guantanamo:
Russians have already convicted the terrorists but US... well:
About 800 detainees have been kept in Gitmo, of those 485 have been released (some after years of imprisonment) without charges.
3 has been charged and 1 (that's one) has been convicted.
Is there any possibilities to fk up human rights worse than that? Heck even Russians have handled the situation better than US and knowing that country it's pretty amazing. OR perhaps it's amazing how badly US have taken care of that issue.
-
You might be surprised...
"Kulayev's trial began in Vladikavkaz on May 1, 2005, with prosecutors General Nikolai Shepel and Maria Semisynova seeking life imprisonment on charges of terrorism, murder and hostage-taking on behalf of 1343 plaintiffs. The trial judge was Tamerlan Aguzarov, and Kulayev was defended by Umar Sikoyev and Albert Pliyev, the latter of which had only practised law for 2 weeks prior to being appointed by the state.
His defence laid in the claim that he was one of the recruited Chechens who were told they would be attacking a military checkpoint, and had no foreknowledge their target was the Beslan school; he was reportedly among several of the militants who argued in favour of capturing the local Beslan police station instead.
While no witnesses have claimed he shot any of the victims, several have testified that he ran around the gymnasium shouting curses and threatening to shoot various hostages with his assault rifle; Kulayev testifies that he was only given the firearm to carry because his leaders didn't want any of their weapons left lying around where hostages could seize them.
Nur-Pashi has testified that "Polkovnik" smashed his cell phone in rage, stating that Russian forces were unwilling to negotiate, and also killed three of the militants, including the two female suicide bombers who had objected to the scholastic target by detonating one of their bombs. Nur-Pashi was supposed to be shot himself, by his brother Hanpashi on orders from "Polkovnik", but Hanpashi refused. Nur-Pashi said the final bloodbath started when Russian snipers killed two hostage-takers who were carrying detonators for the explosives strung around the gymnasium.
His long hair was found unsettling by several of the plaintiffs on the opening day of the trial, and was shaved the following day. Surprisingly, a group of victims' families called Mothers of Beslan led by Susanna Dudiyeva, has shown sympathy for Kulayev, promising to seek an appeal on his behalf given his honesty and cooperation during the trial; one went so far as to pledge to send any compensation money she received to Kulayev's children, though there is otherwise no mention of his having children. The Sydney Morning Herald has been criticized, however, for titling Kulayev the "Timid Guerilla" and referring to him as "more sheepish than sinister." [3]
On September 29, 2005, the Mothers of Beslan called for the chief prosecutor Nikolai Shepel to be replaced for incompetence and claims of merely acting out a scripted prosecution without calling high-ranking Russian officials to testify. On October 4, 2005, the Supreme Court of North Ossetia announced that Shepel would not be replaced, in a disputed ruling. [4] About a month later, the Mothers of Beslan spawned a new group dubbed the Voice of Beslan, which was considered more radical than the former, and courted many of the husbands. [5]
On December 16, 2005, Valery Andreyev, chief of the North Ossetian Federal Security Service (FSB) at the time of the hostage-taking, testified that he had personally given the order to overrun the school during the siege. Four days later it was announced that Alexander Dzasokhov, the former leader of North Ossetia, would testify at Kulayev's trial. His presence was demanded by the Mothers of Beslan.
On February 16, 2006, the trial concluded, pending a verdict due July 1. The Mothers of Beslan reportedly requested the death penalty for Kulayev while the Voice of Beslan lobbied against it. The reading of the verdict began on May 16, 2006, [6] and Kelayev was sentenced to life imprisonment."
(http://media.npr.org/programs/day/features/2006/aug/beslan/kulayev_trial540.jpg)
Kulayev in court.
The whole trial was broadcast in Russia. Would they do that in America? ... oh, that's right the suspects won't even get a trial.
(http://www.themoscowtimes.com/photos/large/2005_08/2005_08_26/front_2.jpg)
One of the child hostages testifying.
-
Lumpy,
I have never thought about this, but would you know?
Did Russia as the Old Soviet Union have the death penalty? If it did, has that been changed with the New Russia?
-
I believe the Russian's still have the death penalty. At least they did have it during Kulayev's trial three years ago.
-
I am not at all familiar with the russian trial. Is the accused russian? Was he found guilty of murdering children? women? I know nothing about it and as far as Im concerned its an internal russian problem.
As far as guitmo goes my opinion is that the islamic fanatic terror problem is a unique problem in our history and needs to be dealt with. Guitmo at first glance appears to be a unique way of dealing with a unique problem. First glance works for me. Most of the people who complain about the Git are people whos opinions I tend to despise to begin with anyway so I pay them no heed. The final analysis is that I do not want fanatic islamic terror foreigners in the US justice system. Keep them off shore down at gitmo for as long as the terror campaign against US and our interests are active. However, the situation is on my radar and I pay attention to it but at the moment I have no problems with the way things are being handled down there.
-
What made them not use it?
The parents of those children and citizens all over Russia would have stood in line to pull the lever as the hangman. It outraged people all over the world. The Russian penal system is a graduate school for some of the worlds worst psychopaths, murderers, brigands and recriuts for the new Russian underworld. Or did the government figure on that and are hoping the inmates will eventualy take care of the issue?
-
The whole trial was broadcast in Russia. Would they do that in America? ... oh, that's right the suspects won't even get a trial.
OJ Simpsons trial was broadcast on tv.
-
I am not at all familiar with the russian trial. Is the accused russian? Was he found guilty of murdering children? women? I know nothing about it and as far as Im concerned its an internal russian problem.
As far as guitmo goes my opinion is that the islamic fanatic terror problem is a unique problem in our history and needs to be dealt with. Guitmo at first glance appears to be a unique way of dealing with a unique problem. First glance works for me. Most of the people who complain about the Git are people whos opinions I tend to despise to begin with anyway so I pay them no heed. The final analysis is that I do not want fanatic islamic terror foreigners in the US justice system. Keep them off shore down at gitmo for as long as the terror campaign against US and our interests are active. However, the situation is on my radar and I pay attention to it but at the moment I have no problems with the way things are being handled down there.
If you took the time to read my post you would have known the answers. And there is nothing unique about Islamic terrorism. It's old news, at least in the old world.
-
What made them not use it?
The parents of those children and citizens all over Russia would have stood in line to pull the lever as the hangman. It outraged people all over the world. The Russian penal system is a graduate school for some of the worlds worst psychopaths, murderers, brigands and recriuts for the new Russian underworld. Or did the government figure on that and are hoping the inmates will eventualy take care of the issue?
If you took the time to read my post you would have know the answers. A group of parents and survivors of the Beslan siege made a plea to the court to let him live. No one can say that the Russians aren't a compassionate people.
-
OJ Simpsons trial was broadcast on tv.
O. J. Simpson wasn't a foreign terror suspect. O. J. Simpson was a football celebrity and a movie star. If he had been a foreign terror suspect there wouldn't have been a trial to broadcast.
-
O. J. Simpson wasn't a foreign terror suspect. O. J. Simpson was a football celebrity and a movie star. If he had been a foreign terror suspect there wouldn't have been a trial to broadcast.
so Kulayev being chechen is equivalent to him being a foreign terrorist? I thought the Chechens were part of the Russian federation? He seems more like our Tim McVeigh...who was rightfully executed btw.
-
so Kulayev being chechen is equivalent to him being a foreign terrorist? I thought the Chechens were part of the Russian federation? He seems more like our Tim McVeigh...who was rightfully executed btw.
Chechen independence is a difficult subject. Sort of what Mexicans are to you guys. I don't think Chechens are considered Russian under Russian law. Russia has recognized Chechen independence in the ceasefire agreement.
Btw. Timothy McVeigh was not charged with terrorism.
-
O. J. Simpson wasn't a foreign terror suspect. O. J. Simpson was a football celebrity and a movie star.
Point is, it was broadcast. Not whether or not he was a terror suspect.
-
That may have been the point, but unfortunately it doesn't answer my (rhetorical) question. O. J. Simpson wasn't a terror suspect, foreign or domestic.
-
Both were high profile cases in their respective countries. That's why the trials were broadcast.
but unfortunately it doesn't answer my (rhetorical) question.
If you are looking for an answer to a rhetorical question, then it's no longer rhetorical, or maybe it never was.
-
Btw. Timothy McVeigh was not charged with terrorism.
Maybe not but he is dead and thats what counts.
-
Both were high profile cases in their respective countries. That's why the trials were broadcast.
If you are looking for an answer to a rhetorical question, then it's no longer rhetorical, or maybe it never was.
I wasn't looking for an answer to my rhetorical question, I provided the answer. That's why it is rhetorical. That other people don't understand that is not my fault. The Russian "high profile" case wouldn't have been a case at all in the U.S. - That was the point.
-
The Russian "high profile" case wouldn't have been a case at all in the U.S. - That was the point.
A situation like the Russians had at Beslan most certainly would be a case in the US, and would most definately be high profile. Every media outlet in America would be covering the story non-stop. Assuming there were any terrorists that survived they most certainly would be put on trial. They might not be charged with terrorism, Timothy McVeigh wasn't even though his actions were the actions of a terrorist, yet the other charges were more than sufficient to earn him the death penalty.
Terrorists, such as those at Gitmo, can be but don't have to be tried in a civilian court. A military tribunal is also allowed to deal with them.
-
A situation like the Russians had at Beslan most certainly would be a case in the US, and would most definately be high profile. Every media outlet in America would be covering the story non-stop. Assuming there were any terrorists that survived they most certainly would be put on trial. They might not be charged with terrorism, Timothy McVeigh wasn't even though his actions were the actions of a terrorist, yet the other charges were more than sufficient to earn him the death penalty.
Terrorists, such as those at Gitmo, can be but don't have to be tried in a civilian court. A military tribunal is also allowed to deal with them.
Yes there have been a few terrorist trials in America. However, the 9/11 2001 attacks were definitely high profile, but how many suspects of that attack (I've already named three three high profile suspects in this thread) have stood trial (I know of one)? How many 9/11 trials have been broadcast? And how many suspects are being held without trial or justice? The 9/11 attacks are the most high profile terrorists acts in American history.
-
The ones that carried out the attacks are all dead, so it's rather difficult to put them on trial. The others don't have to be put in a civilian trial, they can be dealt with by military tribunal and if I'm not mistaken, there is no requirement for the military tribunal to be public in the same sense that a civilian court is public.
What you are ignoring, is the fact that these terrorists that are being held consider themselves soldiers in a jihad. They do not fight for a nation state, they fight for the jihad. Since they don't fight for a nation state, they are not protected by any article of the GC except article 3. Note the part I bolded does not specify civilian or military courts. Also note that the bolded part is a protection, not a requirement for a trial.
Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
-
During the WWII saboteurs were executed rather quick after captured. However they didn't have to first torture people and then execute. Gestapo did that and alot of innocent people were executed after a false confession, when they rather chose to die or rot in prison than suffer under torture. I don't think anyone disagrees with execution of the terrorists, but torture on the other hand is a whole different matter.
-
See Rules #4, #5 (I do not believe anyone on this board is torturing anyone, but you seem to be approaching it. Notice the use of the word "you".)
-
What US is ignoring is human rights; You have been keeping hundreds of people imprisoned for years without any kind of military or civilian court. Even Ruskies did set up a fake courts just for the sake of the show but US haven't even done that.
Not the best way to get sympathy; all you have done is damaged your own country.
I do believe that military tribunals have decided these peoples fates. In a previous thread that was brought up, with links. Yet it was ignored by many.
Fishu, I agree, the torture shouldn't be taking place. I suspect that just because they admit to torturing 3 w/ waterboarding, that those 3 are likely not the only victims of that technique.
-
CNN’s Christiane Amanpour does a story on the murder of more than two million Cambodians by Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, and compares it to the United States using waterboarding on three top Al Qaeda terrorists to get information about imminent attacks :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/04/07/amanpour.pol.pot/index.html
"I thought that was the end of my life," he told me. "In my room people kept dying, one or two every day."
Van Nath was kept in a room packed with 50 other inmates, shackled together and forced to lie down.
"We could not sit. If we wanted to sit, we had to ask permission first. No talking, whispering or making noise," he told me.
Van Nath described how male prisoners were whipped raw, their fingernails were yanked out, they were hogtied to wooden bars. Prison guards mutilated women's genitals, ripped off their nipples with pliers. And worst of all, babies were ripped from their mothers' arms and slaughtered. Video Watch the former prisoner recount the brutality »
Van Nath was accused of being a CIA agent and given electric shock torture, but he survived when his jailers found out he was one of Cambodia's most prominent painters. And what did they make him paint?
"Pol Pot's picture. Big pictures," he told me. "I had to paint the same one again and again. If they didn't like my painting, that would have been the end of my life."
So when Pol Pot finally fell in 1979, Van Nath returned to paint what he had really seen and heard at S-21. He did it as a memorial to the 14,000 who had been tortured and executed in the prison. It's one of the few public reminders of the regime's crimes.
Take water torture, for instance. Van Nath remembers it as if it were yesterday. I gasped as I entered a room filled with his vivid depictions.
One of his paintings shows a prisoner blindfolded and hoisted onto a makeshift scaffold by two guards. He is then lowered head first into a massive barrel of water. Another shows a prisoner with cloth over his face, writhing as an interrogator pours water over his head.
Van Nath still remembers the accompanying screams: "It sounded like when we are really in pain, choking in water," he told me. "The sound was screaming, from the throat. I suppose they could not bear the torture.
"Whenever we heard the noises we were really shocked and scared. We thought one day they will do the same thing to us."
As he talked and showed me around, my mind raced to the debate in the United States over this same tactic used on its prisoners nearly 40 years later. I stared blankly at another of Van Nath's paintings. This time a prisoner is submerged in a life-size box full of water, handcuffed to the side so he cannot escape or raise his head to breathe. His interrogators, arrayed around him, are demanding information.
I asked Van Nath whether he had heard this was once used on America's terrorist suspects. He nodded his head. "It's not right," he said.
But I pressed him: Is it torture? "Yes," he said quietly, "it is severe torture. We could try it and see how we would react if we are choking under water for just two minutes. It is very serious."
Well, there you are. The US is Pol Pot :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
The ones that carried out the attacks are all dead, so it's rather difficult to put them on trial. The others don't have to be put in a civilian trial, they can be dealt with by military tribunal and if I'm not mistaken, there is no requirement for the military tribunal to be public in the same sense that a civilian court is public.
Perhaps you should try to read the thread before posting something that has already been dealt with?
So Nuke, you don't think "it was ever intended to be used on civilians"? Strange then that the three people we know it has been used on were civilians. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was taken from a friend's home in Rawalpindi, Pakistan by Pakistani secret police and handed over to US authorities. He is a civilian. Zein al-Abideen Mohamed Hussein was taken from his two-story apartment in Faisalabad, Pakistan by CIA operatives. He is a civilian. Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri was arrested in the United Arab Emirates and turned over to US authorities. All are terrorists and criminals, but none of them were captured on any battlefield (though Hussein made a fight of it in his home and was shot three times).
No Nuke, what we're talking about here is dragging people out of their homes in the middle of the night, wishing them away to some clandestine prison and torturing them without trial or justice. So far only bad people have been taken (I hope). So far.
These people were not military personnel or “combatants” in any way and thus should be handled by the civilian justice system.
What you are ignoring, is the fact that these terrorists that are being held consider themselves soldiers in a jihad. They do not fight for a nation state, they fight for the jihad. Since they don't fight for a nation state, they are not protected by any article of the GC except article 3. Note the part I bolded does not specify civilian or military courts. Also note that the bolded part is a protection, not a requirement for a trial.
Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.
However if you insist on calling this a military situation:
Your definition would exclude anyone who commits a crime. That's ludicrous. The Merriam-Webster English dictionary defines a civilian as "a specialist in Roman or modern civil law" or "one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force". Under international humanitarian law a civilian is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces. The International Committee of the Red Cross 1958 Commentary on IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War Article 4.4 states that "[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law." The ICRC has expressed the opinion that "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents. They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".
"If civilians directly engage in hostilities" ... Civilians.