War is a terrible thing. No matter how hard we try, it is not possible to sanitize it and form it into something consumable by the general public.
I'm not clear on what you are getting at, but "go as you please" doesn't sound at all like a policy I would advocate.
Not just America it's a general problem of large army thinking vs terrorism.I am not against torture or wars, but the way America approached to solve its problems was bit dumb.
Oh yeah, the Romans were SOO inept at understanding human psychology that their routine massacres of recalcitrants limited their hegemony for only..500 years. :rofl:
Once you shed the politically correct&comforting delusion that state terror necessarily breeds new generations of rebels or hordes of discontents, rather than that state terror can be instrumental in forcing a mentality shift towards acceptance and loyalty, we can speak some more...
In Gaul?It was a bit of a different situation. Rome could be constantly assailed by barbarians
In Gaul?
In Hispania and Lusitania?
In Britannia?
Not at all..at least not after the thorough roman massacres.
THe reason why the Romans were constantly harassed by Germanic tribes, was that the germans were piss-poor and every military campaign must (in the Roman view), in some sense, pay for itself.
Thus, it was the INEFFECTIVITY of roman campaigns (i.e only targeted reprisal raids) that spurred the germans to new assaults and promises about riches.
I deleted that post because the thread is about way too many topics already.
Not just America it's a general problem of large army thinking vs terrorism.
Take the British in N. Ireland, the idea is to destroy the terrorists - obviously by any means possible.
So after a car bombing you arrest the nearest Irishman, beat a confession out of them - and get a conviction. You assassinate known terrorists, their lawyers, journalists that favor them.
You make sure that the public fears the terrorists, or rather anyone catholic and/or Irish.
Every time you do this, you create a new generation of people that see you as the enemy, you guarantee that only the most militant political leaders on the other side will get ahead
But of course eventual victory is certain if you just had more troops on the streets, had easier ways to get confessions, could intern/arrest/harass potential terrorists.
I deleted that post because the thread is about way too many topics already.
Yeah maybe this would be better discussed in the History forums? It does seem really interesting however not going to lie.
Abu Ghraib is one just one example. The torture, or abuse, was administered by military personnel and there is a long list of military personnel that received punishment. The interrogations were performed by civilian subcontractors that didn't take part in the abuses. While the defense of some of the military personnel was that they were directed to soften up detainees for the interrogations, there evidently was no verifiable evidence that that was true. None of the civilians involved in the interrogations were prosecuted.
You are mistaken. I believe beatings may rise to the level of torture. I do not grant that every mention of the word 'beating' with no elaboration what so ever rises to that level, as it may have been a single hand slap to a detainee that was spitting or biting his handlers. I have the sense that in the process of your corroboration of the assertion that the US 'tortured [people ]for years' every use of the word 'beating' gets translated to 'aha', torture.Yes, I know you've adopted a personal definition of the word torture according to which beating doesn't count.
Aside from the beatings upon arrest and initial detention and transfer described earlier, some of the detainees were beaten later during their time at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo. Three were sodomized at Abu Ghraib. Three were subjected to electric shock at detention facilities, two in Iraq and one at Kandahar in Afghanistan. Many of the physical assaults reported would likely have resulted in bruises and soft tissue injuries that would not leave lasting physical marks. However, bone scans of six individuals as well as scars and healed lesions on the former detainees, are consistent with the physical abuse reported. Scarring on one individual’s thumbs is highly consistent with the scarring caused by electric shock. Further, reports of rape and sexual assault were also corroborated by medical examination.
You are mistaken. I believe beatings may rise to the level of torture. I do not grant that every mention of the word 'beating' with no elaboration what so ever rises to that level, as it may have been a single hand slap to a detainee that was spitting or biting his handlers. I have the sense that in the process of your corroboration of the assertion that the US 'tortured [people ]for years' every use of the word 'beating' gets translated to 'aha', torture.
The infliction of repeated blows; spec. the action of inflictig blows in punishment (OED)
an act of striking with repeated blows so as to injure or damage; also : the injury or damage thus inflicted (Mirriam-Webster Online)
(verb "to beat")
a. To strike repeatedly.
b. To subject to repeated beatings or physical abuse; batter.
c. To punish by hitting or whipping; flog. ( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/beat )
The beatings inflicted on detainees at US facilities at Bagram and Kandahar in Afghanistan were particularly intense, and included beatings with sticks and fists, kicks
to the stomach and genitals and blows to the head. As a result, Haydar, who was held at Kandahar before being transferred to Guantánamo, lost three of his teeth and Rasheed, who was held at both Bagram and Kandahar facilities, lost consciousness and was hospitalized. Similarly, all former detainees held at Guantánamo reported that the most intense and widespread physical beatings they experienced at the facility took place during
transfer and shortly after arrival there.
[...] Hafez, who was held at a US facility at Baghdad International Airport and Abu Ghraib for over seven months, was forced to the ground and beaten severely on his legs and back,
causing his lips, forehead, and nose to bleed; he also reported being stripped and having his chest and pubic hair ripped out by hand and being simultaneously beaten, hit, and choked while being doused with cold water.
While physical evidence of beatings often may not be detectable in later medical evaluations, findings from bone scans of six of the former detainees as well as scars and lesions visible during physical examination are consistent with the history of beatings described by the victims.
Arar is blindfolded and chained and put into a van. He is forced to bend his head down in the back seat. He is beaten intensely every time he tries to move or talk. [...] He is forced to keep his head down, and he is beaten again. [...] Early the next morning Arar is taken upstairs for intense interrogation. He is beaten on his palms, wrists, lower back and hips with a shredded black electrical cable which is about two inches in diameter. He is threatened with the metal chair, electric shocks, and with the tire, into which prisoners are stuffed, immobilized and beaten. [...] During the second week of the interrogation, Arar is forced into a car tire so he is immobilized. [...] He is told to write, among other things, that he went to a training camp in Afghanistan. The official kicks him every time he objects. The next day Arar is interrogated and beaten on and off for eighteen hours. Arar begs them to stop. He is asked if he received military training in Afghanistan, and he falsely confesses and says yes. This is the first time Arar is ever questioned about Afghanistan. They ask at which camp, and provide him with a list, and he picks one of the camps listed."
The Maherarar case is from a personal source, but it alleges no torture at any time of Maherarar, by anyone.
My mistake, I missed the electrical cable. It used the verb 'beaten' and I was looking for torture, and in my view that case rose to the level of torture when that electrical cable got used.
Nine of the fourteen alleged that they had been subject to daily beatings during the initial period involving repeated slapping, punching, and, less often, kicking to the body and face. These beatings lasted up to half an hour and were repeated throughout the day and on subsequent days. They took place during periods ranging from one week up to two to three months.
"I was punched and slapped on the face to the extent that I was bleeding. While having a rope round my neck and being tied to a pillar my head was banged against the pillar repeatedly.
"two interrogators who did the actual beating, still asking questions, while the main interrogator return after the beating was over"
According to LTC Beaver, the SMU TF Legal Advisor raised concerns with her about physical violence being used by SMU TF personnel during interrogations, including punching, choking and beating detainees.
the detainee would be slapped across the face [...] I asked my colleagues how long this had been going on, specifically the slapping, they said approximately 30 minutes.
In the absence of any possibility of assessing these allegations in situ by means of private interviews with detainees subjected to forced feeding, as well as with doctors, nurses and prison guards, the allegations, which are well substantiated, must be held to be accurate.
I simply meant that I was scanning that lengthy document for some form of the word torture and so missed the beating episode.As if, for you, in that context, eighteen hours of blows with something else is likely not to be a torture.
Ok, but also consider the alternative: that the above is exactly the type of pleading used by conspiracy theorists, and with a highly charged issue it relatively easy to produce a large amount and variety of sources. But because the issue is highly charged, the bar is that much higher to show relevance and accuracy.Rasalhague said:...The material I've quoted or linked to includes internet ephemera such as Wikipedia articles and press reports about ongoing cases. It's reasonable to be cautious about such sources, and more generally. Clearly if we were conducting the trial of an individual accused of a particular instance of torture, as opposed to debating this issue on an internet forum, we'd need to be more rigorous than that. We'd want to question eye-witnesses, hear statements, call expert witnesses such as doctors. But the amount and consistency of the evidence, and the variety of sources, including allegations of prisoners, medical reports, official investigations, papers published by NGOs, ongoing legal cases, etc. speaks for itself. By all means question unsubstantiated claims, but don't let that become an excuse for ignoring the rather obvious pattern.
I noted it when the Gitmo commander at the time spoke publicly about it. What is the point of including this reference, about force feeding prisoners on a hunger strike who would otherwise be likely to commit suicide by starvation?Rasalhague said:And the United Nations report on Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay. Note its comment on force feeding:
You are mistaken. I believe beatings may rise to the level of torture. I do not grant that every mention of the word 'beating' with no elaboration what so ever rises to that level, as it may have been a single hand slap to a detainee that was spitting or biting his handlers. I have the sense that in the process of your corroboration of the assertion that the US 'tortured [people ]for years' every use of the word 'beating' gets translated to 'aha', torture.
Maybe so, but several news rags have been included in this thread, and they're citing other sources 2nd and 3rd hand from advocates (e.g. defense lawyers). That kind of source deserves a very skeptical eye.Actually, I can understand this when referring to posts on an internet forum (even extending to some less professional "news analysts"). In official reports, I think it's safe to say they're using the term as defined by the dictionary.
Ok, but also consider the alternative: that the above is exactly the type of pleading used by conspiracy theorists, and with a highly charged issue it relatively easy to produce a large amount and variety of sources. But because the issue is highly charged, the bar is that much higher to show relevance and accuracy.
We're all about the field here. 'Speaks', exactly, to what? 'Obvious pattern' of, exactly, what? Several of the references discuss rendition repeatedly or the water boarding at G'tmo. I haven't made nor seen any posts in the thread denying the US used rendition, or water boarded the three at G'tmo, or that these were in keeping with US policy at the time right or wrong. There are also the Abu Ghraib abuses, for which some were prosecuted and served jail time.
If the theory is that the US is responsible for the cases of torture by other nations without other evidence that the US sanctioned it, then I'm not interested in the discussion.
I noted it when the Gitmo commander at the time spoke publicly about it. What is the point of including this reference, about force feeding prisoners on a hunger strike who would otherwise be likely to commit suicide by starvation?
Those Wiki rendition examples do not cite torture in US military custody or otherwise at the hands of US officials. The concern here would be US sanction of the torture in the hands of other countries, of which, so far, I've not seen proof.
What was previously just a set of allegations is now proven: large numbers of people have been abducted from various locations across the world and transferred to countries where they have been persecuted and where it is known that torture is common practice. [...] Some individuals were kept in secret detention centres for periods of several years, where they were subjected to degrading treatment and so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” (essentially a euphemism for a kind of torture)
A special commission of inquiry conducted a separate inquiry into the facts and a detailed examination of the various political aspects, in order to establish the facts and to draw conclusions from the shortcomings evident in this case. The Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar – Analysis and Recommendations (364 pages) was published in July 2006. The commission’s official website provides ample information about the terms of reference of the inquiry, the role of the commissioner and counsel, and the commission’s rules of procedure. The website also provides in great detail background documents of the factual inquiry (including transcripts of public hearings, and summaries of in camera hearings, reports from expert witnesses and the detailed “Fact Finder’s Report”). Similar information is published as regards the examination of political aspects."
U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III in Alexandria acknowledged that Masri "has suffered injuries" if his allegations are true and that he "deserves a remedy." Sources have said Masri was held by the CIA for five months in Afghanistan because of mistaken identity. Masri says he was beaten, sodomized and repeatedly questioned about alleged terrorist ties.
But Ellis said the remedy cannot be found in the courts. Masri's "private interests must give way to the national interest in preserving state secrets,'' the judge wrote in dismissing the lawsuit filed last year against former CIA director George J. Tenet and 10 unnamed CIA officials.
It was your blanket statements about the US "released ... after years of torture" without use of caveats like 'by other countries', or 'alleged by the individual' that drew me to this conversation, and not some wholesale denial of abuses during the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, or abuses in any war for that matter.A blanket scepticism towards allegations of the kinds we've been discussing, and a reflex to give the benefit of the doubt to an organisation we know was prepared to torture in some cases, is not the same thing as a critical attitude towards sources.
It was your blanket statements about the US "released ... after years of torture" without use of caveats like 'by other countries', or 'alleged by the individual' that drew me to this conversation, and not some wholesale denial of abuses during the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, or abuses in any war for that matter.
I appreciate the work you've done in providing references here though I'm inclined to trust some more than others. That said, I'll move on ...