US congress approves interrogation techniques

[mathwonk]

does this bother anyone? I myself am profoundly troubled and embarrassed.

According to the account I read in the Atlanta Journal, the law says George Bush gets to decide what are appropriate interrogation techniques, there is no public list of the ones he approves, there is no appeal after mistreatment, such as for the Canadian citizen we kidnapped to Syria where he was tortured, and no appeal of wrongful imprisonment.

Apparently this turns back the clock on human and accused rights several hundred years. To me president Bush goes from bad to worse every time i read the news. He already seemed like the worst president in my memory and that goes back to Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, Bush2, and now he seems much much worse than before.

I was listening to Crosby Stills and Nash today, "Speak out against the madness". Are we back to those days? Good Lord...

How much harm can one person do?

 

[devil-fire]

are people who speak out against him still instantly branded as anti-american or pro-terrorist? eg. "why would you want to protect terrorists?"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The jokes about Bush being a King used to be funny...sort of.

This is all just unbelievable; and more so the general lack of outrage. I don't know if things will turn around for at least another generation. The number of people who condone the use of torture [and the rest of this nonsense] is shocking.

 

[MeJennifer]

What can I say, IMHO, what we have here is a group of people who claim the moral highground while covering their backs for torture, condoning secret prisons and Guantanamo bay, destroying whole countries like Afghanistan and Iran and having a double standard when it has anything to do with Israel.
It is simply disgusting!

 

[Yonoz]

...having a double standard when it has anything to do with Israel.

Hey! :grumpy:

 

[Rach3]

A horrific example of what is happening now that confessions under torture are accepted as evidence:

Expecting U.S. Help, Sent to Guantánamo

Abdul Rahim Al Ginco thought he was saved when the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and overthrew the Taliban regime.

Mr. Ginco, a college student living in the United Arab Emirates, had gone to Afghanistan in 2000 after running away from his strict Muslim father. He was soon imprisoned by the Taliban, and tortured by operatives of Al Qaeda until, he said, he falsely confessed to being a spy for Israel and the United States.

But rather than help Mr. Ginco return home, American soldiers detained him again. Nearly five years later, he remains in the United States military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — in part, it appears, on the strength of a propaganda videotape made by his torturers.

...Another law passed by Congress last month would ban the use of statements made under torture from the military tribunals that are to be used to prosecute some Guantánamo detainees.

But that second law, which awaits the president’s signature, would also sweep away most federal court challenges to the detention of Guantánamo prisoners, including perhaps the one filed by American lawyers for Mr. Ginco, who is now 28.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/15/u...&en=cbfd1c11c472873f&ei=5094&partner=homepage

 

[ptabor]

The jokes about Bush being a King used to be funny...sort of.

This is all just unbelievable; and more so the general lack of outrage. I don't know if things will turn around for at least another generation. The number of people who condone the use of torture [and the rest of this nonsense] is shocking.

Out of curiosity, are you opposed to torture on principal - or are you opposed to the fact that our government is retarded and detains / tortures innocent people?

 

[Rach3]

Out of curiosity, are you opposed to torture on principal...

Is that an actual question?

 

[ptabor]

Yes, it is.

Actually, let me digress a moment. I've observed an attitude that has bothered me for some time.
Why does everyone here seem to think that shooting a person in the gut and letting them bleed out on the battlefield over the course of hours or days is any better than putting them on the rack?
Please tell me how it is any better to mortar a group of enemy soldiers and blow off their limbs than it is to put them in a cell and hack off their leg with a chainsaw?

Either way, they're in a world of hurt. Certainly, the difference cannot be the capacity for retaliation, as we drop bombs on our enemies all day long and nobody complains about the soldiers getting blown to pieces.

On a related note, how is it NOT torture to enforce economic sanctions against an already destitute nation where scores of the population die every year from starvation (NK, of course)? Does anyone here really think that Kim Jong il is going to go hungry? Who do you think will pay the price?

 

[siddharth]

Yes, it is.

Actually, let me digress a moment. I've observed an attitude that has bothered me for some time.
Why does everyone here seem to think that shooting a person in the gut and letting them bleed out on the battlefield over the course of hours or days is any better than putting them on the rack?

That's the first wrong assumption. Not shooting a person in the gut and not torturing is better, IMO.

Please tell me how it is any better to mortar a group of enemy soldiers and blow off their limbs than it is to put them in a cell and hack off their leg with a chainsaw?

Either way, they're in a world of hurt.

What if you don't do either?

Certainly, the difference cannot be the capacity for retaliation, as we drop bombs on our enemies all day long and nobody complains about the soldiers getting blown to pieces.

Nobody complains about soldiers getting blown to pieces??

 

[ptabor]

Certainly, it is better to not do either.

However, reality is ... well... reality and in reality war is a necessity, in some situations (our present situation in Iraq excluded).

My point is that there seems to be a contradiction. Certainly people complain about soldiers getting blown up, but they don't call it torture. I see zero difference between torturing a person on the "battlefield" and in a torture chamber. Either way, you are inflicting unimaginable suffering - yet one course of action is accepted while the other is condemned. They are equivalent, in my mind at least - which is why I'm asking.

Evidently, people here hold a different opinion, and I'd like to find their reasoning - ie how the reconcile this apparent (to me) contradiction.

And for the record, I'm all for closing our secret prisons (and the not so secret Gitmo) as it is almost certainly a fact that the majority of detainees are innocent.

 

[daveb]

My guess is that some people accept the mutilation of soldiers as a necessary evil because the soldiers are armed at the time we shoot/bomb them. After they are prisoners, they are no longer armed and pose no immediate danger, so people are not accepting of the same kind of mutilation then.
Then there are others such as I who think there is no difference between the two. Dead is dead and mutilated is mutilated.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Certainly, it is better to not do either.

However, reality is ... well... reality and in reality war is a necessity, in some situations (our present situation in Iraq excluded).

My point is that there seems to be a contradiction. Certainly people complain about soldiers getting blown up, but they don't call it torture. I see zero difference between torturing a person on the "battlefield" and in a torture chamber. Either way, you are inflicting unimaginable suffering - yet one course of action is accepted while the other is condemned. They are equivalent, in my mind at least - which is why I'm asking.

Evidently, people here hold a different opinion, and I'd like to find their reasoning - ie how the reconcile this apparent (to me) contradiction.

And for the record, I'm all for closing our secret prisons (and the not so secret Gitmo) as it is almost certainly a fact that the majority of detainees are innocent.

The man who is on the battle field has a weapon in his hand and is there usually because he choses to be there, he has a chance to kill the enemy and if he fails he risks death but it is his choice. Therein lie the differences, no one choses to be tortured nor can they defend themselves in any way, nor can they flee. They are at the absolute whim of others. I think that makes a large difference in the deal.

Another thing is the man who blows someone to smithereens is not trying to inflict suffering, you're not sitting on the battlefield thinking now how can I cause the most suffering, degradation, humiliation and pain, therefore although you are trying to do the opposition harm or kill them there is not the same level of malice in your actions, intent is always key in morality.

Granted they are both bad but I'd say torture is one of the least tolerable actions in warfare, in war both sides have to defeat the enemy, what makes for a moral highground if there ever is one, is how you act when dealing with the enemy after the smoke has cleared; at least in non hard-line Republican world, where people are considered more civilised People are going to get blown apart, bits will fly off them, they may even get killed, let's hope they don't have to go through torture as well. From what I've heard war is bad enough without further dehumanising your enemy.

 

[Astronuc]

And for the record, I'm all for closing our secret prisons (and the not so secret Gitmo) as it is almost certainly a fact that the majority of detainees are innocent.

Some (many?) may be innocent.

On the other hand, the US apparently let one of the major terrorists go . . .

Yes, wounded and captured in Afghanistan, taken to Guantanamo Bay. He was in Guantamano for quite some time. He lied about his nationality and convinced the Americans that he was actually an Afghan but, in fact, he was a Pakistani. He was released and he came back and he began his own jihad against the United States. …

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/militants/mehsud.html


I don't approve of torture, but certainly interrogation is not a pleasant experience. What is cruel to someone, may be not so to another. The greatest problem I have is that 'innocent' people are picked up and tortured. In order to prevent this in the US, we have 'due process', and limits on interrogation techniques.

I fully appreciate that secrecy may be necessary, but total secrecy from even those whose job it is to provide oversight, i.e. from the courts and members of Congress, is just too dangerous. While secrecy must be used to protect national security, it can also be used to conceal illegal activities, and that is the major problem with secrecy of the Bush administration. Some of what Bush has done has been determined to be in violation of US law! So one is left to wonder what other illegal activities are going on under the concealment of secrecy.

 

[devil-fire]

any time a combatant surrenders, its unlikely they are no longer able to fight, but instead they consider their life more important then the amount of harm they may yet do to the enemy. what i mean by that is people don't always surrender because they are out of bullets, but because they don't want to die (as in fighting won't further their cause, but only get themselves killed) so when you add torture into the equation, there is No reason to surrender at all. by torturing people, the fight is made harder, not essayer. combine this with the likelihood of information got from tortured people being of poor quality and the net effect of torture doesn't work in Anyone's favor.

(edit) i forgot about this

I don't approve of torture, but certainly interrogation is not a pleasant experience. What is cruel to someone, may be not so to another. The greatest problem I have is that 'innocent' people are picked up and tortured. In order to prevent this in the US, we have 'due process', and limits on interrogation techniques.

innocent people being captured and tortured is one reason why the usa is having such a hard time making any progress in pacifying iraq. even the moderates in iraq are largely turned against the usa's occupation because there is so much the us army does that is objectionable. if the us army is going to win this war, they really need to change how they are fighting it and not give people so many reasons to want to become suicide bombers.

 

[Dawguard]

With all the talk about torture, I have not seen a detail of the techniques in this bill. I've looked through the various news sources, commentators, etc., but all I see is rhetoric about torture and the war on terror. What types of interregation techniques are allowed? I doubt that it would be the classical form of torture: hot brands, taking fingernails off, pliers, etc. Without further details it is impossible to make an informed decision on whether this bill should have been passed.

Regardless of that, I am not totally opposed to the use of torture. I truly believe there are times when it is necessary to extract information out of a terrorists, and any means should be used. They put themselves in that situation by choosing to be a terrorist, and it was their choice to go to war with us.

The man who is on the battle field has a weapon in his hand and is there usually because he choses to be there, he has a chance to kill the enemy and if he fails he risks death but it is his choice. Therein lie the differences, no one choses to be tortured nor can they defend themselves in any way, nor can they flee. They are at the absolute whim of others. I think that makes a large difference in the deal.

I believe they do have a choice in the matter, but it coems long before they ever were capture.

Another thing is the man who blows someone to smithereens is not trying to inflict suffering, you're not sitting on the battlefield thinking now how can I cause the most suffering, degradation, humiliation and pain, therefore although you are trying to do the opposition harm or kill them there is not the same level of malice in your actions, intent is always key in morality.

In our case torture is not used to humiliate, degridate, etc., the enemy. It is used to get information, and if that information can only be obtained by humiliation, degridation, etc., so be it. The prisoner could have chosen to tell everything and thereby eliminate the need for harsh interregation, but often times they choose to be silent. The USA does not torture for sadistic reasons.

Granted they are both bad but I'd say torture is one of the least tolerable actions in warfare, in war both sides have to defeat the enemy, what makes for a moral highground if there ever is one, is how you act when dealing with the enemy after the smoke has cleared; at least in non hard-line Republican world, where people are considered more civilised People are going to get blown apart, bits will fly off them, they may even get killed, let's hope they don't have to go through torture as well. From what I've heard war is bad enough without further dehumanising your enemy.

War is bad and terrible, and I for one would like nothing better then if the US was not involved in any wars. However, other people chose to try to kill us. They want to come here and cut the throats of everyone who doesn't follow their religious totalitarianism. That was their choice, and because of that I have little or no sympathy for them. I don't care if their friends blew themselves up, I don't care what happens to them in a battle, because they made it this way. Moral highgrounds be damned, I want to win as fast as possible in order to end the war with the least casualties on our side. Perhaps those opposed to torture are better people than me, perhaps my morallity is more flexible, but I'm willing to do anything to win. Does this mean I'm a bad person: maybe, but frankly, if it means my survival and prosperity over the terrosists, I don't care.

 

[siddharth]

In our case torture is not used to humiliate, degridate, etc., the enemy. It is used to get information, and if that information can only be obtained by humiliation, degridation, etc., so be it. The prisoner could have chosen to tell everything and thereby eliminate the need for harsh interregation, but often times they choose to be silent. The USA does not torture for sadistic reasons.

But what about "prisoners" like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar" ? :uhh:

I find your assumption that any detained person is automatically guilty, very flawed.

 

[devil-fire]

With all the talk about torture, I have not seen a detail of the techniques in this bill. I've looked through the various news sources, commentators, etc., but all I see is rhetoric about torture and the war on terror. What types of interregation techniques are allowed? I doubt that it would be the classical form of torture: hot brands, taking fingernails off, pliers, etc. Without further details it is impossible to make an informed decision on whether this bill should have been passed.

i think the bill on topic here is something to the effect of 'bush decides what is and is not acceptable interrogation (not excluding torture, or anything for that matter, so there is really No Limit here). bush does not have to check with anyone, or let anyone know what is or is not permissible'. considering this is from an administration that has literally tryed to redefine torture, i think they are wouldn't hold back from getting a lot of use of this.

In our case torture is not used to humiliate, degridate, etc., the enemy. It is used to get information, and if that information can only be obtained by humiliation, degridation, etc., so be it. The prisoner could have chosen to tell everything and thereby eliminate the need for harsh interregation, but often times they choose to be silent. The USA does not torture for sadistic reasons.

i disagree that there is a significant difference between torturing with humiliation/degradation/etc and using those tools of torture for the sake of getting information. the other side systematically uses torture in the form of mutilation not because they are sadistic but because they want to send a message of deterrence. the side being tortured doesn't distinguish being the means and the ends. also, i think the people who are actually committing these acts would have to have a curtain sadistic stamina to be able to do these things (including american interrogators)

Moral highgrounds be damned, I want to win as fast as possible in order to end the war with the least casualties on our side.

i think this is a vary important point because it comes up in just about every significant conflict in history. the key phrase here is "our side". what is "our side", if not a moral code? is it nationality? what is the usa besides the moral code of the constitution? is "our side" a geographical area defined by imaginary lines? a language? a skin color? a religion? i strongly believe "our side" is a group of people who live by a moral code that serves us as a culture/nation/community better then a moral code that allows people to own their wives or a government to dictate to the governed without accountability or allows people to be tortured

 

[Dawguard]

But what about "prisoners" like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar" ? :uhh:

I find your assumption that any detained person is automatically guilty, very flawed.

In a case such as Maher Arar, they suspected him of having terrorist connections. In such a case like that, I would most certainly not condone any actions of torture or harsh interregation.

The times when torture would be justifiable, in my opinion, would be times when people are captured from a battefield, when you have no doubt of their guilt, or if you have undeniable proof that they are part of a terrorist group. In the case you mentioned, neither was true, and so I would not be in favor of what was done to him. The problem here is, I think, a case when known terrorist are mixed in with suspected terrorists. I think a better system would be to have separate prisons, and only those people who had been found guilty by a fair trial, or who had been captured without any ambiguity of their guilt, would be subjected to this manner of harsh interregation. There are problems with our current system, and I am more than willing to admit them.

the side being tortured doesn't distinguish being the means and the ends. also, i think the people who are actually committing these acts would have to have a curtain sadistic stamina to be able to do these things (including american interrogators)

I couldn't care less what the side being tortued distinguishes, since they placed themselves in that position by joining a terrorist organization and trying to kill innocent people. Certainly, the interrigators would have to have a callousness in their character, otherwise they would not be capable of their actions. However, there is a vast difference between being willing to do your job, and actually taking pleasure in it. However, if there are people torturing prinsoners just because they enjoy it, I would be the first demanding the severest penalty for them.

i think this is a vary important point because it comes up in just about every significant conflict in history. the key phrase here is "our side". what is "our side", if not a moral code? is it nationality? what is the usa besides the moral code of the constitution? is "our side" a geographical area defined by imaginary lines? a language? a skin color? a religion? i strongly believe "our side" is a group of people who live by a moral code that serves us as a culture/nation/community better then a moral code that allows people to own their wives or a government to dictate to the governed without accountability or allows people to be tortured

This is indeed an important point. In this conflict, I believe our side is a culturue, specifaclly western culture, and the enemy is a religious extremist who want to take us back to the days of absolute church rule. Also, I do not see a contradiction between our culture and the ideas of survival at any cost. After all, it is Western culture that produced people like Machiavelli: and the morals are so wide and ambiguous that it is nearly impossible to say that one action contradicts the generals morals of the culture.

In the end, I do find many problems with our system the way it is. There shouldn't be just one person who has the power to do anything he wants. I think the bill would have been much better served if it had in its writings the actual definition of torture that it condoned. However, on the general subject of torture, I do not see any problem with it so long as it is not abused. The only stipulation I would have is that there be oversight over the people being subjected to various levels of interrigation. Beyond that, I am willing to do anything in order to save the lives of innocent Americans. After all, sometime you have to do something you hate, in order to live another day.

 

[devil-fire]

i totally disagree that torture is acceptable in any situation because i think its ineffective and unnecessary but since I am not being the one tortured here and no one here is doing the torturing, i think we can agree to disagree on those points for now. instead, let's talk about the conditions this bill should or likely will be used under...

my understanding of what your saying is that its OK to do anything required to preserve one's culture and this would include torturing people who kill innocent americans as long as they are either captured from the battlefield or are captured on the basis of undeniable proof.

if these people are being captured from a battlefield, what innocent americans are they killing? my understanding of the people being captured from battle fields in iraq is that they are trying to kill iraqi soldiers/police, or american soldiers/private contractors and personally i wouldn't consider those people exactly innocent (although this may be a point for another thread). as for people being captured on undeniable proof, its vary debatable what constitutes undeniable proof. many people are detained/interrogated in dragnet operations or because they have been pointed out by other detainees. the evidence of someone's guilt comes from their own interrogations.

keep in mind that there are a lot of people being tortured in iraq right now who don't have the information the interrogators are looking for (or any other information that could save soldiers' lives, much less anyone's life outside iraq). and this bill permits much much harsher treatment for these people. i mean after all, the vast majority of people are interrogated to find out what information they have, not because its known they have some piece of information that's needed

 

[Dawguard]

my understanding of what your saying is that its OK to do anything required to preserve one's culture and this would include torturing people who kill innocent americans as long as they are either captured from the battlefield or are captured on the basis of undeniable proof.

if these people are being captured from a battlefield, what innocent americans are they killing? my understanding of the people being captured from battle fields in iraq is that they are trying to kill iraqi soldiers/police, or american soldiers/private contractors and personally i wouldn't consider those people exactly innocent

If you believe that American soldiers/contractors aren't innocent, than there is no common ground on which we can meet to discuss. How can you possibly suggest that the soldiers are deserving of the bombs, spiner attacks, etc.? Whether you agree you should be in Iraq or not, never suggest that soldiers are not innocent. Its ludicrous, fallacious, insulting and incredibly ungrateful. Just to be upfront about myself, I'm a cadet in the Air Force ROTC program, and eagerly anticipating when I commission. I wear the same uniform as the soldiers in Iraq, I swear the same vows and sign the same contracts. By suggesting that the soldiers aren't innocent, you're insinuating that they somehow deserve have limbs blown off and be murdered by terrorists who want to establish a religious totalitarian regim. Not only is that incredibly offense to any family member of a wounded or killed soldier, but it is also deeply insulting of the entire American military, and I take that very personally.

As for the Iraqi police force, all they are doing is trying to support an elected government, and trying to bring some peace and order to the devastated country. Why should that be deserving of death?

as for people being captured on undeniable proof, its vary debatable what constitutes undeniable proof. many people are detained/interrogated in dragnet operations or because they have been pointed out by other detainees. the evidence of someone's guilt comes from their own interrogations.

This is indeed a somewhat gray area. I can see how it might be possilbe to claim someone is guilty when they really aren't. However, there are cases where there is no doubt, such as that of KSM or other ranking Al-Quaida members. While I'm not familiar enough with the law to write out a legal defenition, I'm sure that a member of the Justice system could easily do it in order to clearly define what is ablsolute proof and what isn't. THis would eliminate the gray area, and make a guide to establish guilt or innocence.

keep in mind that there are a lot of people being tortured in iraq right now who don't have the information the interrogators are looking for (or any other information that could save soldiers' lives, much less anyone's life outside iraq). and this bill permits much much harsher treatment for these people. i mean after all, the vast majority of people are interrogated to find out what information they have, not because its known they have some piece of information that's needed

Indeed, we cannot know what someone else knows, but we do know that they have information. Every captured terrorist knows something of value, due to their interaction with other terrorists. While it might not directly save a life, it might lead to other information that does, and that it a chance that cannot be overlooked.

 

[Office_Shredder]

If you believe that American soldiers/contractors aren't innocent, than there is no common ground on which we can meet to discuss. How can you possibly suggest that the soldiers are deserving of the bombs, spiner attacks, etc.? Whether you agree you should be in Iraq or not, never suggest that soldiers are not innocent. Its ludicrous, fallacious, insulting and incredibly ungrateful. Just to be upfront about myself, I'm a cadet in the Air Force ROTC program, and eagerly anticipating when I commission. I wear the same uniform as the soldiers in Iraq, I swear the same vows and sign the same contracts. By suggesting that the soldiers aren't innocent, you're insinuating that they somehow deserve have limbs blown off and be murdered by terrorists who want to establish a religious totalitarian regim. Not only is that incredibly offense to any family member of a wounded or killed soldier, but it is also deeply insulting of the entire American military, and I take that very personally.

Not really. I don't see how someone walking around in body armor with a machine gun can be equated with someone who walks into work, and gets killed by a plane crashing through his office window.

Innocent in this case clearly is referring to innocent bystanders, and in no way is either side of a battle a bystander. Don't try to blow it out of proportion.

As for the Iraqi police force, all they are doing is trying to support an elected government, and trying to bring some peace and order to the devastated country. Why should that be deserving of death?

Essentially the same answer as above, it doesn't mean they're deserving of death, however, it does basically make them the legitimate target of someone opposed to the current Iraqi government. Unless you prefer the anti-government forces killing people at random.

This is indeed a somewhat gray area. I can see how it might be possilbe to claim someone is guilty when they really aren't. However, there are cases where there is no doubt, such as that of KSM or other ranking Al-Quaida members. While I'm not familiar enough with the law to write out a legal defenition, I'm sure that a member of the Justice system could easily do it in order to clearly define what is ablsolute proof and what isn't. THis would eliminate the gray area, and make a guide to establish guilt or innocence.

Actually, there is a way of determining innocence or guilt. It's called the judicial system. I don't see why it should be re-done to deal with a couple hundred or thousand cases.

Indeed, we cannot know what someone else knows, but we do know that they have information. Every captured terrorist knows something of value, due to their interaction with other terrorists. While it might not directly save a life, it might lead to other information that does, and that it a chance that cannot be overlooked.

Can we torture Bin Ladin's children if we find them living with him? They would certainly have information

You can't just say "Oh, well our side is right, so nobody on our side should be killed", even as you advocate torturing people on the other side for information. Either you think it's a war, or not. If it's not, stop torturing people. If it is, then stop complaining that the other side is fighting back. Do you think that you, after being commissioned and (hypothetically) being given the task of bombing terrorist training camps, deserve some sort of immunity from their retaliation? Would you consider yourself an innocent bystander in the war?

 

[Dawguard]

Not really. I don't see how someone walking around in body armor with a machine gun can be equated with someone who walks into work, and gets killed by a plane crashing through his office window.

Innocent in this case clearly is referring to innocent bystanders, and in no way is either side of a battle a bystander. Don't try to blow it out of proportion.

Why can't they be equated? The soldier is just doing his job, he or she signed up to defend their country. If you don't think that's what they're doing in Iraq, then take the issue to the people who sent them there. The soldiers on the ground did nothing wrong, and therefore they are just as innocent as a desk worker at a bank. And why are only bystanders innocent? If I'm mugged by someone, and I fight him to defend myself, am I any less innocent than somone who saw it from across the street? Self-defense is always innocent, no matter if they were in the fight or not.
I don't mean to blow it out of proportion, but when someone suggests that the soldiers in Iraq somehow deserve what happens, I can't ignore it. That is too personal a topic, and too big an issue for me to ignore.

Essentially the same answer as above, it doesn't mean they're deserving of death, however, it does basically make them the legitimate target of someone opposed to the current Iraqi government. Unless you prefer the anti-government forces killing people at random.

Being a target has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. In that case, would you call the Allied soldiers in WWII not innocent, since they were legitamite targets?

Actually, there is a way of determining innocence or guilt. It's called the judicial system. I don't see why it should be re-done to deal with a couple hundred or thousand cases.

This is the main point, and really the only thing in the post that has anything to do with the bill, i.e. the original topic. If the American judicial system were opened for every terrorist, then we would almost never get any information. The wheels of justice might graind, but very slowly. We don't have that luxury of time right now. Don't you think that someone like KSM would have gotten lawer and taken his case to court, just to delay when he would have to give up information? We can't take that risk with people we know to be terrorists, and so there has to be a pragmatic solution. That is why it should be redone for a couple hundred or thousand cases.

Can we torture Bin Ladin's children if we find them living with him? They would certainly have information

Children did nothing to place themselves in this situation, and so of course we shouldn't torture them. Just like I wouldn't advocate torturing POWs in normal wartime. Our enemy is different now, since every one of them chose to try to kill us.

You can't just say "Oh, well our side is right, so nobody on our side should be killed", even as you advocate torturing people on the other side for information.

Why not? I just did.

Either you think it's a war, or not. If it's not, stop torturing people. If it is, then stop complaining that the other side is fighting back.

I'm not complaining that they're fighting back. It is what I would expect. I recognize that they won't stop fighting until they're dead. That's why I'll do anything I can in order to hunt down and kill every last one, since that is the only way we can win.

Do you think that you, after being commissioned and (hypothetically) being given the task of bombing terrorist training camps, deserve some sort of immunity from their retaliation? Would you consider yourself an innocent bystander in the war?

Of course I'd be innocent, just like every other soldier in the military, although we aren't bystanders. Look, this isn't a fight we started, this is self defense. Would you say that if a woman was being raped and she killed the rapist, that the rapsits friends have a right to retaliate? That's idiocy: sure she killed someone, but she's still innocent. It's just the same with soldiers in war. A pilot who bombs terrorists training camps is innocent, since those terrorists were training to kill him! It isn't all that complicated: self-defense means innocence. While I'm sure the terrorists don't see it that way, I don't give a damn what they think.

 

[devil-fire]

Look, this isn't a fight we started, this is self defense.

iraq was vary much invaded by the usa while they had practically no connection to terrorism and no active WMDs program. in this case, the usa would be the aggressors.

I'm not complaining that they're fighting back. It is what I would expect. I recognize that they won't stop fighting until they're dead. That's why I'll do anything I can in order to hunt down and kill every last one, since that is the only way we can win.

aside from this sounding like indiscriminate mass killing, fanatical terrorists are spawned in part from oppression and acts of indiscriminate killing. your trying to fight fire with fire here... that's no way to put out a fire

Why can't they be equated? The soldier is just doing his job, he or she signed up to defend their country. If you don't think that's what they're doing in Iraq, then take the issue to the people who sent them there. The soldiers on the ground did nothing wrong, and therefore they are just as innocent as a desk worker at a bank

Regardless of that, I am not totally opposed to the use of torture. I truly believe there are times when it is necessary to extract information out of a terrorists, and any means should be used. They put themselves in that situation by choosing to be a terrorist, and it was their choice to go to war with us.

with these 2 quotes are you saying that american soldiers are innocent even if they bomb iraqis because its just his job to defend his country and any iraqis that he is told to bomb are attacking his country? on the other hand what i understand your saying is that iraqis who would shoot down that bomber to protect themselves from being bombed are attacking an innocent american and thus, deserve to be attacked, killed or tortured?

how i understand what your saying is that iraqis who choose to attack americans are legitimate torture subjects because they willingly chose to participate in this conflict but somehow american soldiers are not legitimate targets in this conflict because they did not willingly chose to be a part of this conflict? i would say that any non-conscripted soldier is a willing participate in any conflict their government makes them a part of (i think the reason anyone becomes a soldier is that they want to serve their government in whatever military way their government would ask of them).

 

[Office_Shredder]

Why can't they be equated? The soldier is just doing his job, he or she signed up to defend their country.

Soldiers sign up to fight in wars. That means killing, and getting killed. I would have hoped you understood that before you signed up for the military. Sorry if it sounds cold, but it's true.

If you don't think that's what they're doing in Iraq, then take the issue to the people who sent them there. The soldiers on the ground did nothing wrong, and therefore they are just as innocent as a desk worker at a bank. And why are only bystanders innocent? If I'm mugged by someone, and I fight him to defend myself, am I any less innocent than somone who saw it from across the street? Self-defense is always innocent, no matter if they were in the fight or not.

In war, you're either a bystander, or you're a military target. Innocent takes on a different meaning than when crimes are committed. In fact, considering the US invaded Iraq, it really makes the Iraqis the innocents, no?

I don't mean to blow it out of proportion, but when someone suggests that the soldiers in Iraq somehow deserve what happens, I can't ignore it. That is too personal a topic, and too big an issue for me to ignore.

Again, nobody said the soldiers deserve to get killed, maimed, etc. It's not a question of whether they deserve it, so much as whether it should be expected to be a possibility. When you signed up to be a pilot, did you sign up thinking you couldn't get shot down? Of course you don't deserve to get shot down (I hope), but the possibility definitely comes with the job.

Being a target has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. In that case, would you call the Allied soldiers in WWII not innocent, since they were legitamite targets?

In fact, I would say the allied soldier weren't innocent. They're going out and shooting people. Although soldiers who are drafted certainly have a better argument than a volunteer military. I don't know how you're using the term, but from a lay point of view, innocent means not associated with the fighting, i.e. a bystander.

This is the main point, and really the only thing in the post that has anything to do with the bill, i.e. the original topic. If the American judicial system were opened for every terrorist, then we would almost never get any information. The wheels of justice might graind, but very slowly. We don't have that luxury of time right now. Don't you think that someone like KSM would have gotten lawer and taken his case to court, just to delay when he would have to give up information? We can't take that risk with people we know to be terrorists, and so there has to be a pragmatic solution. That is why it should be redone for a couple hundred or thousand cases.

Which hundred or thousand cases? Are you going to set up a court for people to be tried into determine whether or not they can be held as a terrorist, with a different set of rights? Doesn't that set up the same problems anyway? Or are you going to leave it up to the military, with no real supervision?

Children did nothing to place themselves in this situation, and so of course we shouldn't torture them. Just like I wouldn't advocate torturing POWs in normal wartime. Our enemy is different now, since every one of them chose to try to kill us.

Interestingly enough, some of Bin Ladin's older children are on America's hit list because they're associated with Al-Qaeda. So at what point do you draw the line and say "No, this 8 year old was innocent". That one's easy. How about a 15 year old son though? Or a 13 year old daughter? They quite easily could have been associated with al-qaeda, including planning, fundraising, giving troops moral support, etc.


Why not? I just did.


I'm not complaining that they're fighting back. It is what I would expect. I recognize that they won't stop fighting until they're dead. That's why I'll do anything I can in order to hunt down and kill every last one, since that is the only way we can win.


Of course I'd be innocent, just like every other soldier in the military, although we aren't bystanders. Look, this isn't a fight we started, this is self defense. Would you say that if a woman was being raped and she killed the rapist, that the rapsits friends have a right to retaliate? That's idiocy: sure she killed someone, but she's still innocent. It's just the same with soldiers in war. A pilot who bombs terrorists training camps is innocent, since those terrorists were training to kill him! It isn't all that complicated: self-defense means innocence. While I'm sure the terrorists don't see it that way, I don't give a damn what they think.[/QUOTE]

 

[Astronuc]

Soldiers sign up to fight in wars.

Some do - the vast majority likely do not. May young people sign up in the military because they need money to go to college, or they can't find a job. Some sign up to server their country. And some do sign up, because they like guns and in some cases, they do want to have an opportunity to kill people. The last point was brought up in a psychological study of Kosovo, where people joined the paramilitary groups so that they could kill people. Ideally, that element of the population is excluded from a combat theatre, but sometimes not. The US military has in the past screened people to exclude those who are predisposed to unjustifiable homicide (e.g. killing non-combatants), but perhaps they have relaxed the criteria in order to meet recruitment goals. Apparently there is a growing number of neo-Nazi and other racist (or otherwise white supremacist) individuals in the ranks of the US military.

 

[Dawguard]

iraq was vary much invaded by the usa while they had practically no connection to terrorism and no active WMDs program. in this case, the usa would be the aggressors.

Let's not get off topic with another Iraq discussion. Our position in Iraq is almost irrelevant to this discussion, since the issue is the general war against terror, and the methods we should or should not use to conduct that war.

aside from this sounding like indiscriminate mass killing, fanatical terrorists are spawned in part from oppression and acts of indiscriminate killing. your trying to fight fire with fire here... that's no way to put out a fire

If someone is threatening to kill me, and I kill him first that's fighting fire with fire, isn't it? And it works. What are you saying, that wars never solve a problem? Sometimes war is the only solution, and it works, if not as pleasently as other options. Let's not use empty rhetoric, let's look at history. War stopped Hitler, freed America, beat the Brtish in 1812, kept the country unified, etc. War is especially the only choice now, because the terrorists will not bow to any other force besides military might. They are bent of their religious extremism, and they won't stop until they're dead. Therefore war is the only option, and fighting fire with fire is the only way to survive.

with these 2 quotes are you saying that american soldiers are innocent even if they bomb iraqis because its just his job to defend his country and any iraqis that he is told to bomb are attacking his country? on the other hand what i understand your saying is that iraqis who would shoot down that bomber to protect themselves from being bombed are attacking an innocent american and thus, deserve to be attacked, killed or tortured?

Once again, I did not single out Iraqis. I'm not confining this topic only to the war in Iraq. In the context of the war on terror, the enemy is any orginaiztion and member of orginizations who seek to attack America. They have already attacked us, and so it is a case of self-defense to bomb them. And yes, the pilots are innocent because of this. What the terrorists does next is irrelevant, they were guilty long before they tried to shoot down the bomber in this hypothetical discussion.

i would say that any non-conscripted soldier is a willing participate in any conflict their government makes them a part of (i think the reason anyone becomes a soldier is that they want to serve their government in whatever military way their government would ask of them).

Willing yes: but there is an enormous difference between being willing to do something and actually wanting to do it. Do you think that the average soldier wants to be overseas, not knowing every day if he might get attacked and murdered? Nobody wants that, but some people are willing, for various reasons.

Soldiers sign up to fight in wars. That means killing, and getting killed. I would have hoped you understood that before you signed up for the military. Sorry if it sounds cold, but it's true.

As Astronuc so skillfully explained, most people do not sign up to fight wars. And of course we understand what we're signing up for.

In war, you're either a bystander, or you're a military target. Innocent takes on a different meaning than when crimes are committed. In fact, considering the US invaded Iraq, it really makes the Iraqis the innocents, no?

Ah, here is the crux of the argument. Why can't a participant in a fight be innocent? Self-defense is always innocent, and since we were attacked, then the war on terror is a war of self-defense. Ergo, American soldiers are innocent. Is there a flaw in this logic? Why do you assume that only bystanders are innocent?

Interestingly enough, some of Bin Ladin's older children are on America's hit list because they're associated with Al-Qaeda. So at what point do you draw the line and say "No, this 8 year old was innocent". That one's easy. How about a 15 year old son though? Or a 13 year old daughter? They quite easily could have been associated with al-qaeda, including planning, fundraising, giving troops moral support, etc.

This would probably be decided on a case by case basis. You can't just draw a line and say anyone younger than this is innocent, and anyone older is guilty. There are too many varities in life for that to work. The best we can have is a set of general rules, and the details deciced by the basis of the particular subjective problem.

 

[devil-fire]

Some do - the vast majority likely do not. May young people sign up in the military because they need money to go to college, or they can't find a job.

unless these people are conscripted, they know full well they are being payed to go to war (if its during war time, and this is) and they agree to choose this job over any alternative. soldiers should not be considered neutral in a conflict where they expect to and are willing to shoot at people. i mean its not a war crime for a soldier to shoot a soldier, however it is a war crime to torture a soldier after they surrender (even if the other side's soldiers may become more safer for it)

Self-defense is always innocent, and since we were attacked, then the war on terror is a war of self-defense. Ergo, American soldiers are innocent.

what does this have to do with the war in iraq? what does this have to do with the legitimacy of torturing people in iraq? the country of iraq didn't attack WTC. if the only people who are not innocent in a war are the ones that attacked first then the americans in iraq are the ones who are not innocent in the american-iraqi war.

 

[daveb]

Let's not get off topic with another Iraq discussion. Our position in Iraq is almost irrelevant to this discussion, since the issue is the general war against terror, and the methods we should or should not use to conduct that war.

Iraq is not irrelevant according to you, since you said...

The times when torture would be justifiable, in my opinion, would be times when people are captured from a battefield, when you have no doubt of their guilt, or if you have undeniable proof that they are part of a terrorist group.

This means Iraqis resisting (what they call) the occupation and puppet government who are captured on the battlefield can be tortured, according to your own words. You say Iraqi soldiers are not innocent, yet our own soldiers are.

Once again, I did not single out Iraqis. I'm not confining this topic only to the war in Iraq. In the context of the war on terror, the enemy is any orginaiztion and member of orginizations who seek to attack America. They have already attacked us, and so it is a case of self-defense to bomb them. And yes, the pilots are innocent because of this. What the terrorists does next is irrelevant, they were guilty long before they tried to shoot down the bomber in this hypothetical discussion.

Yes, it's true you aren't confining this to just Iraq. However, you are lumping those in Iraq with the terrorists. Not all those in Iraq want to attack America. Some just want America out of Iraq. Some do it because they (rightfully or not) perceive that America has invaded their homeland.

Ah, here is the crux of the argument. Why can't a participant in a fight be innocent? Self-defense is always innocent, and since we were attacked, then the war on terror is a war of self-defense. Ergo, American soldiers are innocent. Is there a flaw in this logic? Why do you assume that only bystanders are innocent?

By your own logic, those in Iraq are all innocent, unless they are also part of a terrorist group. If you simply believe that all those fighting against us in Iraq are terrorists, then who not just simply say so? At least then your statements would be consistent.

This would probably be decided on a case by case basis. You can't just draw a line and say anyone younger than this is innocent, and anyone older is guilty. There are too many varities in life for that to work. The best we can have is a set of general rules, and the details deciced by the basis of the particular subjective problem.

And if this is the case, who gets to decide? The miltary? The courts? The Bush Administration? If the latter, then how do we know they're applying it rationally and not willy nilly?

The whole point of the torture debate is a matter of accountability. Bush (well, the Administration) gets to decide who is innocent and who is guilty. They get to decide what the punishment is. How is this any different than what Saddam did? To simply assume the US will take the moral high ground and only torture for information those caught in the act of performing terrorist acts is naiive. They'll torture anyone they perceive as guilty or is suspected of being a terrorist in the hopes of getting more information

 

[Dawguard]

Iraq is not irrelevant according to you, since you said...

This means Iraqis resisting (what they call) the occupation and puppet government who are captured on the battlefield can be tortured, according to your own words. You say Iraqi soldiers are not innocent, yet our own soldiers are.

Please don't assume that the enemies in Iraq are fighting just to free themselves. Even they don't say that. Most of the orginizations are under the auspices of larger networks, such as Al-Qauida, and they claim they fight for the glory of Allah and to kill the foreign infidels. All you have to do is look at what they say when they murder people: also, they don't just attack Americans, they blow up innocent Iraqis. There is no way they can be construed as anything but enemies, and not deserving an ounce of sympathy for their cause.

Yes, it's true you aren't confining this to just Iraq. However, you are lumping those in Iraq with the terrorists. Not all those in Iraq want to attack America. Some just want America out of Iraq. Some do it because they (rightfully or not) perceive that America has invaded their homeland.

I'm lumping most of the Iraqi enemies with the general terrorists because most of them are affiliated with larger terrorist groups, as I mentioned earlier. Also, most if not all of them fight for the same ideaology as the terrorists, i.e. radical Islam, and that makes them extremely dangerous, whether they might be in Iraq or elsewhere. I have seen no evidence that there are people fighting against us in Iraq just because they percieve us as invaders.

By your own logic, those in Iraq are all innocent, unless they are also part of a terrorist group. If you simply believe that all those fighting against us in Iraq are terrorists, then who not just simply say so? At least then your statements would be consistent.

Very well, I'll make my position clearer: all those fighting against us in Iraq are terrorists.

And if this is the case, who gets to decide? The miltary? The courts? The Bush Administration? If the latter, then how do we know they're applying it rationally and not willy nilly?

The whole point of the torture debate is a matter of accountability. Bush (well, the Administration) gets to decide who is innocent and who is guilty. They get to decide what the punishment is. How is this any different than what Saddam did? To simply assume the US will take the moral high ground and only torture for information those caught in the act of performing terrorist acts is naiive. They'll torture anyone they perceive as guilty or is suspected of being a terrorist in the hopes of getting more information

The accountability in this case would be a military tribunal. I don't think the powers should be in the hand on one man, a president, or any particular administration, but nor can we afford to give all terrorists access to our legal system. Also, I see no reason why there can't be objective observers with access to interrigation techniques and information. I'm not saying that the military or president should have absolute power over the prisoners and should be able to do anything in secret, I'm just saying that certain techniques should be allowed.

As to why it is different than Saddam or any other totaliterian regime, that is simple. We can't use it on our own citizens, and we don't use it to gain power. Simple and quick, a citizen of America has all the legal rights as other citizens, unless they are proven to be an enemy combatant, and in their case they would have full legal rights like any other criminal case. Also, we don't torture people because they don't do what we say. We'd only take the step to torture because we were attacked, citizens were murdered en masse, and the enemy continues to proclaim their desire to kill us.

Also, while I can't naively assume all the interrigations would be neccesary, neither can you naively assume that by allowing them we would somehow become evil and abuse them. I have more faith in our military generals and commanders, and more faith in the people of America. I trust our country, and that's all there is to it.

 

[edward]

The new "we can torture act" was passed at the insistence of the president to save his own arse. In essence he has given himself a pardon for any crimes that he could possibly be charged with in the future. He has violated both the war crimes act and the Geneva convention.

The fine print in the new Military Commissions Act makes it retroactive to 1997. It is a rewrite of the 1996 war crimes act.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20061007&articleId=3416

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ&eurl