Pajamas Media

116 Comments

1. Benson:

“So in the end, while the issue is a legal one, where you stand is matter of opinion.”

Yes, it is a legal question, but it seems to me that “where you stand” is a matter of ethics. And ethics is IMHO not just opinion, though many nihilists dispute that.

Sam Harris, in his book The End of Faith, insists that “…restraint in the use of torture cannot be reconciled with our willingness to wage war in the first place.” Pacifism, however, is not an option, according to Harris: it is “…ultimately nothing more than a willingness to die, and to let others die, at the pleasure of the world’s thugs.”

I believe Harris provides the most rational discussion of the ethics of torture to emerge in many years; it is far more sophisticated than the competing emotional assertions that are common, and it goes much deeper than the recitation of legal points found in Moran’s post, above. Before you approve of or denounce torture, you would do well to understand Harris’s arguments.

Dec 19, 2008 - 2:08 am 2. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Rick Moran, et al.
RE: Like Beauty….

….’torture’ is in the opinion of the beholder.

Look at the the good Reverend Wright. I’d find it torture to sit through one of his anti-American polemics. But Obama had no problem with them….for 20 YEARS.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. That activity in the picture associated with this article isn’t, in my opinion ‘torture’. Well, maybe it is to me, but in a manner ‘legs’ wouldn’t appreciate. As I see it, it is an impromptu and unauthorized ‘Prop-Blast Ceremony’ honoring a non-airborne qualified miscreant. It diminishes the honor bestowed on airborne officers who go through the hallowed and honorable tradition of getting ‘blasted’.

Dec 19, 2008 - 2:19 am 3. Gian:

The AQ is not a Contracting Party to Generva Convention so how come AQ prisoners came to enjoy Geneva Protections?.

Dec 19, 2008 - 3:26 am 4. RE:

It’s really a boring, tedious, and useless debate.

When your own loved one’s fates hang in the balance, all bets are off. One will do what needs to be done. The high road exists only as long as detached anonymity does.

Dec 19, 2008 - 4:04 am 5. Tony R:

If torture is against the law then it has to be prosecuted although the punishment for its instigation really needs to be tempered by the circumstances involved.

Torturing someone because you don’t like the colour of their skin or because you don’t agree with their ideology should be punished to the full extent of the law and every effort should be made to stamp this practice out entirely.

But torturing one criminal where there is genuine belief that information could be obtained that could save the lives of hundreds or even thousands of innocent people is something that I believe cannot be summarily dismissed.

Maybe seeing those hundreds or thousands die because of inaction might please those in their high (and safe) moral towers but down in the real world I would question the integrity of anyone who could deny the worth of its limited (very limited) use.

Dec 19, 2008 - 4:23 am 6. Spinoneone:

Since most of the personnel captured in Afghanistan and subsequently sent to Gitmo were not fighting for a recognized government, and were, under the usual international definitions “guerrillas,” it is easy to make an argument that they are not covered by any of the four Geneva Conventions nor by the Hague Convention. While any reader of ‘Pajamasmedia’ is welcome to a “holier than thou” attitude towards torture, I don’t recall seeing an article by Mr. Moran objection to the treatment of prisoners, both national and international, by any Arab or post-Soviet nation. Oh, and then there is Iran. Not a word. So, while Mr. Moran may wish to continue “Bush bashing” as a way to distract from Obama’s participation in the Blago affair, maybe he should ask himself, “Are we safer today than we were on 9/10/2001, and, if so, why?”

Dec 19, 2008 - 4:33 am 7. bbb:

Well, I am put off by the hyperventilated comparison of detainee treatment to Vietnam. “There is no other issue in my lifetime except Vietnam that has elicited such passion in both defenders and detractors”? Puh-leeze. Perhaps you didn’t live in America during the Reagan years. The left was routinely apoplectic about everything Reagan did, from putting Pershing II’s in Europe to Star Wars to support for the mujaheddin — all of it aimed at bringing down their incarnated hopes of the ideal society: the Soviet Union. In contrast, “detainee abuse” is a footnote, a propaganda club with which to undermine the struggle against our modern enemy. It may be a topic of heated conversation in the salons of Hyde Park, Manhattan, and Beverly Hills, but in the rest of flyover country it’s just not a priority.

In fact, despite an unhealthy appetite for politics, I really don’t care a lot about this issue one way or the other. I have no moral qualms about interrogation of illegal combatants, but as far as I’m concerned it’s an executive branch decision. Obama could opt to be lenient on terrorists, and though I think that would be an unwise shift in policy, there are more vital issues to debate.

BTW In my limited military training, it was made clear (in FM 27-10) that the Geneva Convention is specifically designed to encourage compliance by state actors. So there are a set of criteria by which the United States judges whether particular groups of combatants are given coverage by Geneva — for example, failing to wear a uniform will be deleterious to your POW status (as will, say, a policy of executing innocent civilians). But if legal authorities decide that POW protections should extend to every combatant rounded up on the battlefield, regardless of the criteria set forth in the GC, that’s okay with me, too — though it undermines the GC. You see, if you create incentives for combatants to follow the Geneva Convention (”outfit your soldiers with uniforms and they will be entitled to GC protections”) and then say, “never mind, we’ll give them POW status no matter how they dress or what they do”, you undercut the elaborately negotiated structure of Geneva. Is that really what you want to do?

I’m glad there was serious debate within the executive branch about interrogation. They seem to have come up with a reasonable compromise, with limited exercise of extreme methods, based on techniques validated through years of development of the SERE program. You and others seem to be upset that they made a decision at all. You never mention the threat that these interrogations mitigated — why is that?

I don’t suppose that the Senate report might just be a political document? Maybe you could look into that.

BBB

Dec 19, 2008 - 4:53 am 8. cedarhill:

With all the current disasters and upcoming Obama disasters, this is just a distraction. After all, when you’re ducking terrorists bullets, missiles and bombs who really cares if Obama hangs everyone.

Dec 19, 2008 - 5:06 am 9. bobdog:

SERE methods have officially been “eschewed” as “icky”, according to the Times. Especially when the media and grandstanding politicians will find out about it.

It’s quite another thing if you’re US military and you’re a captive. Then the world press and the New York Times traditionally look the other way. To the best of my recollection, I have never read an outraged New York Times article condemning North Vietnam for its treatment of McCain or ever calling for war crimes tribunals.

For all its squeamishness, the Times thinks that if we don’t use coercive but non-destructive interrogation techniques on our prisoners, regimes like North Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Saddam’s Iraq, Iran, 1960’s France, and a dozen crackerbox dictatorships in Africa will find it in their hearts to treat their prisoners with enlightened love and compassion. I can almost hear the entire United Nations General Assembly marching down the streets of Manhattan singing “It’s the real thing”.

Do they think we’re actually IDIOTS? Do you think they have a single clue about their own sanctimony? Do you think they’ve even figured out why half the country despises the Times?

Dec 19, 2008 - 5:43 am 10. grampa guy:

Here’s a solution: Change the stupid laws. Then, give credit to Cheney for pointing out their incompatibility with waging a war for survival. You will be making this same argument right up until your head is removed on the internet by some 12th century lunatic who doesn’t like white wine and brie. Or, as I like to tell my hand-ringing, pacifist-except-when-spewing-hate friends:
“Honey, don’t worry. I’ll paint the living room. Just as soon as I get the rattlesnake off the sofa.”

Dec 19, 2008 - 6:00 am 11. Sarah:

I think the most imporatnt question that needs to be asked is: How are our soldiers treated when they are captured?
At the very least, I believe, the enemy should be expected to be treated the same. And I think we all know that the rest of the world isn’t near as queasy at the prospect of torture as Americans are, they don’t hesitate to use it so why should we?
Once again, we are sacrificing the potential safety of millions of lives on the alter of political correctness because after all, it really matters what the rest of the world thinks of us….right?

Dec 19, 2008 - 6:03 am 12. Vaughn Burckard:

I will take ‘waterboarding’, over listening to Harry Reid or Barney, the ‘banking queen’ any day.

Dec 19, 2008 - 6:21 am 13. Will Becker:

It all depends on wheather you are a sheep or a sheep dog.

Dec 19, 2008 - 6:29 am 14. jedrury:

Mr. Moran’s moral breast beating will find some meritful rebuttal in the long lead editorial in the Journal today. He has seemed to fallen for Carl Levin’s rhetoric and political gamesmanship. As far as coming to terms with “our national disgrace,” to do so will rend this country far more than the Vietnam or this past election.

The RNC is just waiting for this misstep to capture the Senate in 2010.
If the likes of Boxer and Levin and the Editorial Board of the Times can convince the Messiah to take this step, it will be a blunder of momental proportions.

Not to mention, a luxurious retirement benefit for the lawyers for Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.

One might consider that the impending trials of the Gitmo 250 will consume enough moral and legal energy in the next four years to sate
the savage moral beast of Mr. Moran.

Dec 19, 2008 - 6:39 am 15. Ms Attitude:

Many on the left believe that President Bush should be held accountable for the treatment of prisoners at GITMO and other places during this war.

One of my college history professors taught me that we need to look at the circumstances surrounding an event and not just the event. If 9/11 had not happened, our emotions would not have been running high. We would not be fearful of another attack and Bush would have never have determined that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention did not apply to Al Qaeda or Taliban detainees.

Should some of the others that authorized the techniques used be held accountable? The techniques authorized were used by our enemies to get false confessions.

IMHO: Torture is wrong. No matter who the prisoner is or what information we are trying to gather. False confessions are not confessions at all and could lead us on wild goose chases.

Dec 19, 2008 - 6:52 am 16. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Rick Moran
RE: Speaking of the ‘Law’….

….of Land Warfare, i.e., the Geneva Conventions,….

…please show US where it is written that the characters interned at Gitmo are ‘legal combatants’.

I’ve reviewed the III and IV Geneva Conventions and I don’t see them as either “prisoners of war” nor “protected persons”. Instead they appear to be outside the law of the Geneva Conventions, unless you can prove otherwise.

So if they are neither legit “prisoners of war” nor “protected persons”, they are not protected by the Geneva Conventions.

Looking forward to your reply.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Great men, great nations, have not been boasters and buffoons, but perceivers of the terror of life, and have manned themselves to face it. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]

Dec 19, 2008 - 7:01 am 17. misanthropicus:

“The Condemned of Altona” – JP Sartre stage play, then film (Sophia Loren, Frederich March, Maximillian Shell) illustrates very well this quandary, where someone needs to take measures beyond the normal life’s standards i order to achieve a legitimate goal.

A screening/reading of “Altona” should preface any debate about this issue – and, to liberals’ annoyance, the debate would tilt towards a “yes” and “vigorous questioning” at AbouGhaib and Gitmo.

Dec 19, 2008 - 7:10 am 18. misanthropicus:

And liberals’ duplicity again under the spot light – now with the Change We Can believe In apparently settled for the White House, where are the screams about the Patriot Act and the Extrateritorial Rendition?

It looks like George Clooney and Meryl Street have suddenly lost interest for those infamies, doesn’t it?

Dec 19, 2008 - 7:13 am 19. mr b:

TO: Chuck Pelto
RE: Your MENSA membership

You’re not as clever you think.

Regards,

Mr b
[Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education. -- Bertrand Russell]

Dec 19, 2008 - 7:34 am 20. Chuck Pelto:

TO: mr b
RE: Really?

You’re not as clever you think. — mr b

Make your case. And, while you’re at it. Make Rick Moran’s as well.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. And speaking of ‘education’….

….It’s a good think that I don’t put too much ’stock’ in MY education at the hands of the American system.

[The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education. -- Albert Einstein]

Dec 19, 2008 - 7:57 am 21. Robert:

The Democrats and their defense of terrorists while giving less rights to those they want to get. The Democrats were very quick in taking some basic rights away from Gov Blago during the impeachment hearings. As revealed by Gov Blago lawyer, the Gov will not be allowed to call any witnesses to the impeachment, will notbe allowed to cross examine witnesses, nor will the Gov be allowed to testify on his own behalf. The Democrat impeachment hearing legislators, will not allow the Republicans to call witnesses. The Democrats have no problems taking away the rights of an American citizen and have no problem extending more civil rights to Gitmo prisoners and other terrorists than they give citizens of the USA.So Democrats, before pissing up a tree over being so concerned over terrorists rights who are not covered under the GC, try giving Americans at least the same rights as you want to those trying to kill Americans.

Dec 19, 2008 - 8:09 am 22. Chuckt:

Tony R. & bbb make good points. The fact is, torture of Gitmo or other detainees is not an issue that is of great concern to the average American. The average American is concerned more about supporting their families.
Like bbb, I have an unhealthy appetite for politics and I try to pay attention (often unsuccessfully) and if a detainee has information that could potentially save American lives and torture is the only way to get it, then I hope the Executive Branch, which should solely be making these decisions, will make the right decision.

Dec 19, 2008 - 8:39 am 23. Daniel:

So let me see if I have this right:

Everyone else turns a blind eye to REAL torture, rape, murder and other horrendous acts committed against civilians (we got mad at Hitler, why not Stalin), and when we use “stress positions” and “sleep deprivation” with a nice mix of waterboarding (on 6 prisoners, not very prolific) in order to extract information to SAVE our own people, that’s a problem?

The individuals and nations that are crying the loudest against our actions are the guilty. I wonder how many liberal journalists, when the blade began sawing at their neck, wished for the salvation of our military and the tactics we use to save millions from a similar fate?

It’s easy to to be a smug Christopher Hitchens when you’re a long way from that blade…

Dec 19, 2008 - 9:19 am 24. robotech master:

Wow another winner from the no research rick moron… even better using Wikipedia as source info…(couldn’t take an extra 30 seconds and goto the UN’s main site eh?)

So lets review your writing style.

Write a non-researched op-ed piece based on other op-ed pieces based on emotions based on propaganda….

O where to start… how about at the GC4.

Unlike like Mr Moron I will link to it instead of an op-ed piece…
http://www.mineaction.org/downloads/Emine%20Policy%20Pages/Geneva%20Conventions/Geneva%20Convention%20IV.pdf

Which says the following…Article 2

“the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between TWO or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.”

Clearly stating you don’t sign you don’t play….

“Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.”

Note again that you don’t sign you don’t play… Also note this

“if the latter accepts and APPLIES(key word here)the provisions thereof.”

On to Article 3…

(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 ealth, 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:

Note the following

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.

Their are 3 groups of ppl in this phase…
1st “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities”
2nd “including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat.”
3rd Everyone else.

This 3 group writing is reinforced by this statement “with respect to the above-mentioned persons:”

It is very clear that Article 3 only applies protection to 2 of the 3 groups. You can also see this in the statement.

“including members of armed forces”

This statement is included because of the 3 groupings and defining “hostilities”.

The first part “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities” defines civs who have taken no active part in hostilities.

The 2nd part “including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat.” Says that members of armed forces(very important note it says armed forces not armed persons/armed citizens/etc, armed forces are defined very clearly in GC3 article 4) who DID take part in hostilities who have now stopped due to etc.

Many argue that somehow article 3 is a end all be all, applies to everything and everyone. Which is completely not true. Statements such as “with respect to the above-mentioned persons” clearly show that their are persons not mentioned above and in turn that article 3 doesn’t just apply every which way to everyone.

Also the problem of article 3 is this “In the case of armed conflict not of an international character”. To translate Article 3 is mostly for the case of civil war were you have an emerging government which has yet to sign the GC under its new form.

We move on to article 4…

“Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.”

Once again very clear. Also note the term BOUND. This term is very important because like above with APPLIES clearly states that if one side doesn’t follow the GC the other side isn’t required to either.

We move on to article 5…

“Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State,”

“Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power,”

Note again the wording “individual protected person”. It doesn’t say everyone… it makes a clear grouping between protected and not-protect. Which goes back to article 3 and how it doesn’t apply to everyone.

Next GC3.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Note the key elements in that all ppl forming militias and volunteer corps are part of the “armed forces”(noted in GV4)

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

Note that section 1-6 all deal with what is termed armed forces/POW status.

Note that in section 2. It clearly defines what you must do to be considered part of the armed forces. Also noted again in section 6.

It is very clear that terrorists are not members of the armed forces and in turn they are not civ either… which in turn means they are open game for anything and everything.

This is the paradox of the GC1-4… while they write the rules for when torture can’t be used they also in inverse write the rules in which ppl can be tortured.

Now lets take the UN next. Anyone who knows anything about UN treaties knows that UN treaties are completely unenforceable, also that because a treaty says one thing and is signed doesn’t mean the treaty says that to the nation that signed it. This can be seen with your wonderful “Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, New York, 10 December 1984 ”

As you can see here from the link http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ratification/9.htm

The US had a whole bunch of changes to it before it signed it. Then if you bother to read what passed congress it has even more changes.

This is how all treaties from the UN work. The US(and other countries) heavily edit them both before and after signing… as well as during their country’s ratification. Since UN treaties are non-binding only the ratification through the home countries laws has any legal standing… but of course you leave that out because it doesn’t support your argument.

The US has gone through great legal dances to protect its citizens from UN treaties while trying to obey them both in legal sense and in spirit. The Constitution is very clear in that we must follow treaties we sign… and that is once again why you have the legal dance teams out their editing these treaties before they are signed and before they go through congress. Some treaties have come up that conflict with the Constitution which are to include but not limited to an attempt by 3rd world dictators and Democrats to pass treaties banning the ownership of gun by anyone but the government.

Lets move on to US laws. Right now in the US their are no laws stopping torture completely the only law currently on the books is

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html

“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.

Note the key word SEVERE… which means that you can still beat them, piss in their cheerios, etc to a degree and that degree is below SEVERE.

Next your note

(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

For those confused… to sum this up.. the US can’t torture US nationals nor can it torture anyone on US ground… once again on the inverse the US can balls to the wall torture ppl as long as they aren’t a US national and they do it on non-US land(ie gitmo). So to sum it up further it doesn’t ban the US from torturing ppl. Like the GC and other legal DOCs it just writes more rules on when/where/how/why the US government has the legal right to torture ppl.

(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

Once again rick moron writes a poorly sourced junk piece that has little to no value. He also uses classic propaganda/junk science moves by sourcing to op-ed pieces under the hope that reader will be confused and believe them to be real sources.
Rick Morons whole arguments along with many of the supposed moral high ground group are made only of op-ed pieces and by redefining terms to fit into their neat worlds. They try to redefine torture as well as the term severe. Soon severe physical or mental pain or suffering will be lack of cable TV…

It is also one thing to argue the point when dealing with US citizens… of which their is always room for argument. However to argue on issues in which are clear cut foreign terrorists who have zero intent to follow any rules and who would purposely exploit those rules to commit further actions in breaking them has no room for argument.

The only way your arguments would have some ground in reality is if

1. We were doing this on a massive scale of 100,000s of ppl and not caring who we did it too(ie we don’t do this stuff to the bottom feeders only the upper command ppl since their the only ones with info)
2. Doing this solely to force ppl to sign confessions and then using only the confessions as proof of guilt.

Dec 19, 2008 - 9:26 am 25. Marie Claude:

woah, chuck, bb, a mensan quotations challenge

___________

1960’s France, yes, unfortunately there was no “better” system to avoid horrible massacres for the civil population and or the conscripted soldiers ; being absoltely against “physical” tortures, it’s not knowing what the “rebels” can make with your body on the other side, sometimes there are “morals” that you have to put aside, for the benefit of the whole, one should know that in wars exceptional rules are de rigueur, so I am not throwing a stone in that debate

Dec 19, 2008 - 9:27 am 26. Fantom:

Chuck @ 16 is correct. The moslem terrorist are not protected under Geneva, hence no US law violated.

Tony Moran is a moron if he takes a democrat controlled committees findings as anything but the partisan garbage it is.

Dec 19, 2008 - 9:32 am 27. robotech master:

PS I will write more on this topic as that is only part 1…. however I need to hit the can and about 10 copies of the latest rick moron winner have at last finished printing…

Do forgive my lack of spacing in part 1 I thought I put enough in their but it looks a mess.

Dec 19, 2008 - 9:33 am 28. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Daniel
RE: I Think…

It’s easy to to be a smug Christopher Hitchens when you’re a long way from that blade… — Daniel

….you’ve pretty well established the difference between the likes of Rick Moran, Christopher Hitchens, et al.

They won’t do anything to protect themselves or the rest of US until someone breaks down their door with a rifle-butt and puts the point of a bayonet or the edge of a dull knife to their silly throat.

Indeed. They make ALL their money on trying to show US how insane we are supposed to be, while ignoring the insanity of the people who want to kill US.

Hey! It’s ‘their bowl of rice’. And as I say, “How niiiiice…..” [Note: A sordid joke about a southern-belle reunion.]

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Gutless wonders hate the rest of US, until it's entirely too late. -- CBPelto]

Dec 19, 2008 - 9:33 am 29. Robert Hurley:

There are five arguments against torture. 1. If you are a Christian it is immoral. 2. It leads often to inaccurate information as the the person being tortured will say anything to escape further torture. 3. Better information can be gained by legal means. 4. The use of torture brings us down to the same level as the terrorists and cripples our ability to portray the US as a country of laws. 5. When you bring the terrorist to trial you can not use the evidence gained as it is tainted

Dec 19, 2008 - 9:51 am 30. DavidN:

An interesting sidelight to this argument is the case of the Japanese in WW2. What follows is from my memory with no attempt at research currently. The Japanese didn’t sign the Geneva Convention. During the war, when their soldiers had to deal with Americans they’d captured, the Japanese were pretty brutal. Any complaints about their behavior would be met with the observation that they hadn’t signed the Geneva Convention, so they could do what they chose. Torture (for recreational purposes, for the most part) was not uncommon, to say the least. At the end of the war, Japanese soldiers were charged with war crimes, and some were convicted and even executed. The standard which was applied to them was the Geneva Convention, I believe, regardless of whether they’d signed it or not.

There is one other question, though. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others of his ilk have committed war crimes that far outweigh anything committed by Rumsfeld or anyone else. KSM after all is thought to be the mastermind behind 9/11, which killed thousands. My understanding is that he’s agreed this is the case. So what’s the ruling here? Do his *rights* outweigh the necessity of preventing another attack?

Dec 19, 2008 - 9:55 am 31. Terry:

Perhaps Mr Moran will explain to the families of Kristen Mendaca & Thomas Tucker how torture will not be done to our soldiers because we don’t torture. They were captured and tortured, their privates cut off and stuffed in their mouths and then their heads cut off. They had to be identified by DNA. I went through worse in basic training in 1953 than these clowns were put through. If you ever had to eat WW11 c-rations for two weeks you might understand.

Dec 19, 2008 - 10:15 am 32. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Robert Hurley
RE: Will Wonders Never Cease!!!?!?!

There are five arguments against torture. — Robert Hurley

I’m ‘listening’…..

1. If you are a Christian it is immoral. — Robert Hurley

Interesting point, that. More on it later in this comment.

2. It leads often to inaccurate information as the the person being tortured will say anything to escape further torture. — Robert Hurley

3. Better information can be gained by legal means. — Robert Hurley

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

After all, that battalion commander who fired his M1911A1 .45 cal pistol into the ground near the head of someone he as ‘interrogating’ about an anticipated assault by the Hussein supporters got some good information from the miscreant.

So your report is, at face value, FALSE.

4. The use of torture brings us down to the same level as the terrorists and cripples our ability to portray the US as a country of laws. — Robert Hurley

Not quite. It depends on the form of ‘torture’.

As I stated earlier, the concept of ‘torture’ is in the eye of the beholder.

One person would consider listening the Barry Manilow albums ‘torture’. Another might turn them on to seduce some woman.

So….

….what do YOU consider torture? Is it the same as mine?

[Note: Pontius Pilot to the Christ, "We all have truths. Are mine the same as yours?"]

5. When you bring the terrorist to trial you can not use the evidence gained as it is tainted — Robert Hurley

Who gives a flip about trying illegal combatants? Or, as I’ve asked Rick Moran and mr b[ozo], show me where these people are protected under the Geneva Convention.

Go on. I dare. NO! I DEFY you.

RE: Back to Item #1

1. If you are a Christian it is immoral. — Robert Hurley

You may have a valid point here.

[1] Do you know enough about christian ethics to make it stick?

[2] If you’re not a ‘christian’ youself….

….why should any christian listen to you?

[3] Furthermore, should the christians here let non-christians do the ‘interrogations’? And work with the information retreived?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]

Dec 19, 2008 - 10:18 am 33. Ms Attitude:

And as I say, “How niiiiice…..” [Note: A sordid joke about a southern-belle reunion.]

Chuck Pelto: I’m from the south and I love that joke!!!

Dec 19, 2008 - 10:47 am 34. Войска ПВО:

I know this is a serious discussion but I am sure, irrespective of what legal or political considerations will drive Obama’s and the government’s policy regarding torture, the ultimate disposition of this won’t matter one whit. Deep in the bowels of any intelligence service charged with gathering information will do so by whatever means necessary depending on the gravity of the situation and the desire for the data.

Besides, someone above mentioned the apoplectic left’s irritation over anything that a Republican administration does. This is gratuitous, but if my memory serves, hasn’t a lot of what was perpetrated by those MPs at Abu Ghraib has been done in the U.S. already by clients of BDSM hookers or pledges in college fraternities?

(The stunt depicted in the thumbnail accompanying this article was reminiscent of what I had to endure during my hell week at UCLA in 1965.)

Dec 19, 2008 - 10:51 am 35. ReConUSMC:

I HAVE A CHRISTMAS PARTY STORY ON MY BIRTHDAY DEC 16TH.
I have a ”very Liberal Neighbor ” that has taken the Position on “TERRORIST “from Day One who said We were Criminals and Thugs for not treating our Prisoners with “”Great Respect ” .
We were both at a Neighbors Diner party for My Birthday and the Wine was flying around . Normally I leave these air heads far LEFT LIBERALS alone but her ranting about America finally got to me while she never says a bad word about America’s known enemies .
I looked at her and said Molly many special operations Marines like me were water boarded as were all the other special operations Military men and CIA as well ….. It’s no big deal . She was blown away but She still insisted the Terrorist should be shown complete respect .
So I ask her the Big Question ….. Who does she love the most in her Life . She LAUGHED and said that has nothing to do with Water Boarding those fine young men ,
I said Oh yes it does ….. Again Who Do You Love the Most I ask HER again ? Since she was a Women that had never gotten MARRIED and She Dearly Loved her Two Little*%$#@*& dogs Like I loved my Wife and Two Girls . She said I LOVE MY TWO DOGS WITH ALL MY HEART SAM SO WHAT ??? !!!!
I said …..OK Molly , Al Quada has your Two Dogs and they are going to Kill them IN TWO DAYS UNLESS WE FIND OUT WHERE THERE ARE .
SHE HOLLOWED OUT AT ME ……. DO WHAT EVER IT TAKES TO FIND OUT WHERE MY BABIES ARE AT …… CUT THEIR BALLS OUT ..WATER BOARD THEM …. I DON’T CARE…… I JUST WANT MY BABIES BACK THESE THUGS STOLE ….. SUDDENLY SHE REALIZED WHAT SHE HAD SAID WHILE EVERYONE IN THE ROOM WAS DEAD SILENT .
SHE TURNED TO ME AND SAID I AM VERY SORRY SAM ……. WHEN THE SHOE WAS FINALLY ON MY FEET I UNDERSTAND YOU FINALLY .
3000 AMERICANS ARE NOT DOGS ARE THEY …… I SAID NO MOLLY THEY ARE NOT ….. THAT IS WHY OUR TROOPS DIE FOR THEM MOLLY .

Dec 19, 2008 - 11:01 am 36. John:

I have to say some of the comments here wouldn’t sound amiss coming from you know who’s willing executioners. It is a matter of human ethics (Christian or otherwise but I find it hard to believe Jesus was in favor of torture!) but it is also a matter of practicality. To take the ethics first. Once you buy into the administration’s position that it’s ok for Americans to torture people we’ve identified as terrorists, well because we’re the good guys, then you’ve said it was ok for the Gestapo to torture French resistance workers or for French paras to torture Algerians during their war of independance. Or Russians to torture Afghans or Chechens, or Serbs to torture Kosovars. There’s no end to it. And please spare us the juvenile I had a tougher time at scout camp nonsense. On the practicality front most people are going to tell you whatever you want if you torture them regardless of how fictional it is which is why you had all those ridiculous confessions during the Stalinist show trials. Then of course you can’t keep it secret so in today’s wired world it’s being blasted everywhere and thereby totally undermining our legitimacy. In short it’s deeply unethical which why we’ve deemed it criminal for years, and counterproductive in practical terms.

Dec 19, 2008 - 11:15 am 37. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Ms Attitude
RE: The ‘How Niiiice’ Joke

Chuck Pelto: I’m from the south and I love that joke!!! — Ms Attitude

I learned it while attending Benning School for Boys (Advanced Course). The phrase has served me well since the learning. Whenever anyone in my corporate life heard me say the term….those who knew me well, started doing turtle tricks.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[I'm just a simple soldier, trying to get along. -- Brigadier General Adams]

P.S. Whenever you heard him say THAT phrase, you’d notice all of his primary and secondary staff officers looking, desperately, for a hole to crawl into and pull in after themselves…..

Dec 19, 2008 - 11:28 am 38. Robert Hurley:

Sorry to disappoint you Chuck, but I am a Roman Catholic. As to your point 3, I don’t see how that relieves you of your resposibility. Your elastic definition of torture demonstrates your own shallowness. As to the effectiveness of legal means – talk to the FBI. You seem to want our country to desend to the level of the very people we are fighting. I think you would find a lot of terrorists who would be perfectly comfortable with your definition of torture

Dec 19, 2008 - 11:32 am 39. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Robert Hurley
RE: REALLY!?!?!?!?

Sorry to disappoint you Chuck, but I am a Roman Catholic. — Robert Hurley

Yeah….Right….And I’m….

….Pope John Paul II.

As He put it, so long ago…

A tree is known by its fruit. — Some Wag, around 2000 years ago

And from all I’ve witnessed of you in this venue, you’re ‘fruit’ is pretty rotten.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. You can refute my undestanding of your ‘faith’ by having your Arch-Bishop sign a letter to me supporting your claim of ‘faithfullness’.

Dec 19, 2008 - 11:37 am 40. Sam:

Watching all you tear down one of your own in a happy rush to justify torture has made me realize that America has hit a new low.

You can’t justify torture. It poisons everything it touches. Including you.

Dec 19, 2008 - 12:02 pm 41. Robert Hurley:

Chuck – I don’t have to prove anything to you. In fact, I rather leave you in your own fantasy world. Have you found Obama’s birth certificate yet? Say hello to your MENSA pals.

Dec 19, 2008 - 12:19 pm 42. Daniel:

@Sam: You’re right, you can’t justify torture. You just use it for what it is.

@All: I like my life in America. I like my freedoms (even though they seem to be evaporating), and the simple fact is that everything we have came from things that are unsavory and despicable. Things I didn’t have to do nor do I have the heart or strength to do.

Thank God there are those who can and do. Too bad there are people that exist to force the need for people to use torture.

Stop trying to paint us in the same categories as Stalin, Mao, Hitler and other such evil governments who tortured for fun and did it to their own civilians.

It’s no where near the same. Saying that one leads to the other is a fallacy and there is no proof of it.

Dec 19, 2008 - 12:33 pm 43. clipmonkey:

The fact that so many “conservatives” and “Christians” are okay with torture just defies logic. As far as the 24 scenario, if someone committed an act of torture in desperation, the military would take that into account in determining a sentence. “Conservatives” and “Christians” should be ashamed of themselves for supporting this disgraceful administration.

Dec 19, 2008 - 12:45 pm 44. DoesNotMatter:

Those who murder on ideological grounds, those who kidnap and abuse persons (children and women mostly, terrorists too) – they have cast off their rights.

Wether their mind or their body is broken to discern their allies, their victims (possibly still alive), to terrify those who might follow them or simply make them beg for death – their first bomb brought this upon them. They knew no mercy then and none shall be shown them now.

I am through with compassion for those who butcher in the name of belief or pleasure. They want blood, pain and tears ?
They can have their own, till they are no more.

Dec 19, 2008 - 12:46 pm 45. DoesNotMatter:

Addendum:
!those who kidnap and abuse persons (children and women mostly, terrorists too)!: This was aimed child rapists and their ilk primarily, terrorist was added to include the groups making the islamic snuff videos floating around. Not to denounce SpecOps and such who catch terrorists.

Because I catch something so easily misconstrued 5 seconds after hitting post…..

Dec 19, 2008 - 12:51 pm 46. ReConUSMC:

To 36 John WRITES ..
YOUR personal Spoiled comparisons are beyond childish , silly and show No Knowledge of the kind of ”people ‘what so ever we are dealing with Today ….. This is WAR John Like No other EVER in American or World history for that matter !!!!
Jesus rose from the Dead . No one has to my Knowledge from 9/11 and I don’t want to take that change FOR America again … but you do ? You Pacifist Liberals never take the Ethical path your selves but have no morals either in your vast majorities ..Look how you’ll ridiculed and totally demeaned Sarah Palin . Water boarding would have been easier for her .
Your scout camp nonsense shows your own Pacifist Liberalism Playing the nice guy only works when your trying to get laid . No one died at our Prison Camps and were treated far better than Americans are in our own prisons and damn sure eat feed far better … than even us Marines in combat or in hard training .YOU ARE A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF A MAN THAT HAS NEVER SERVED THIS COUNTY AND SEE LIFE FROM YOUR ARM CHAIR .
Just for the record We get info from terrorist in many ways …. I for one can’t talk about .
In my Recon Marine days …. I was treated far worst that those terrorist were …. No sleep for days , little food , hours in freezing water and days in 120 temps. and yes water boarded to name a few test we endured often .
We can not Fight Wars PC Correctly You Liberals want us to do but Your Kind really thinks Wars can be ended with Understanding , sweetness and deals .
Now with Al Quada ……. Your kind is putting our Troops in harms way .
There are 11 sign offs before you can kill a terrorist;plus countless paper work from bottom to top with field reports and Officer of the day reports as well . Jag officers are everywhere .

The enemy will continue to be head and suicide bomb innocent human beings John until they are no more ..period .
It your Kind that makes Marines like me wishes my Marines Buddies had not died for your kind and I had lost part of my left leg ,

Dec 19, 2008 - 12:51 pm 47. Pat J:

It amazes me how some people can ever find a justification for torture.

Dec 19, 2008 - 12:56 pm 48. misanthropicus:

Re #29/Robert Hurley: [...] five arguments against torture. [...] 2. It leads often to inaccurate information as the the person being tortured will say anything to escape further torture. 3. Better information can be gained by legal means. [...] 5. When you bring the terrorist to trial you can not use the evidence gained as it is tainted. [...]

Mental giant dba Hurley – the answer for three of your arguments are here (the other two simply do not qualify for rebuttal):

for (2): the information you get is not necessarily the information you use; when you corroborate/verify info you can see what’s exageration and what could be truth. (Note on bad info: an intelligence officer fears like hell intoxication, and the system always corroborates info: remember, the CIA always wanted to meet Curveball, but the Germans didn’t allow for it).

for (3): maybe, if you deal with a 6 years old, and even there you can have some bad surprises;

for (4): the info you squeeze is not for the courts’ use, Hurley, it’s called “actionable intelligence” and is used in a proactive way. The fact that at an ulterior date the court may toss it as evidence doesn’t mean that
a) the rspective info wasn’t VEERY useful prior to the lawsuit;
b) that the court, i.e. rules are right: and here I remind you:
1) that an important rule that facilitated the occurrence of 9/11 was the “Susan Gorelick/ firewall memo”, epitome of unrealistic view of the world;
2) that secretary Cook, a couple of years ago when adressing his Euro counterparts about the challenges faced by the counter-terrorist activity, lamented the ill-suited legal framework in which the intelligence services have to work;

Hurley, get real! Remember in the “Magnificent Seven”
the joke told by Vin to the old Mexican about a guy who falls from the tenth floor and at each floor says “’till now I’m OK”? Well, that’t was a liberal – yet eventually, that guy faced the ground.
And we don’t want to live of borrowed time.

Dec 19, 2008 - 12:56 pm 49. myth buster:

Treat them the way we treat our Cadets and Midshipman their first summer at the service academies, or run the prison like Paris Island. No physical beatings, but mental taxation to the point of breaking. No more than 6 hours of sleep a night, workouts start at 5 am and go until 30 minutes before breakfast, at which time they must shower, shave and report for breakfast with the menu memorized. If you don’t name it, you don’t eat it. After breakfast, they spend the rest of the morning cleaning their rooms and memorizing information for inspection at 1100. If anyone breaks position of attention, has improperly kept room or prison uniform, or fails to correctly answer a question, big burly Gunnery Sergeants scream their heads off in their faces, then make them do push ups. Lunch is the same as breakfast. All afternoon is drill practice, and then dinner follows the same protocol as breakfast and lunch. This continues every day until a prisoner agrees to talk.

Dec 19, 2008 - 12:57 pm 50. ReConUSMC:

47. Pat J:
It amazes me how some people can ever find a justification for torture.
________________________

Are you mentioning our Americans enemies Pat J : Never !! it is not in the Anti American ……American Socialist /Pacifist play book to talk about their far worse than any America’s behaviors .
I have yet to see One article on Al Quada and The Telibane Skinning men alive slowly .
One last Time : All special Ops . operation American services are water boarded and I drank beer that night at the Officers club in Little Creek 4 hours later …its no big deal .
Jumping out of a C-47 in the dead of night into the middle of the med or dismal swamp was far worse at night ….believe me !
Our enemies that thank you Pat J .

Dec 19, 2008 - 1:46 pm 51. Bugs:

My solution: Close Gitmo and let all those poor men go! And from then on, do not accept the surrender of any non-uniformed combatant on any battlefield anywhere in the world.

I think the argument that if we treat them poorly it will make them treat our soldiers poorly. At Gitmo, Akbar gets three hots and a cot, plus the freedom to engage all the religious mumbo-jumbo he wants. Sgt. Fury, captured by insurgents in Iraq, gets beaten up, tortured, forced to say stupid things in front of a video camera, and eventually shot or beheaded and his body dumped by the road.

There is no moral parallel to be drawn here. We are civilized. They are not. Leaving them alive after a battle is a mistake.

Dec 19, 2008 - 1:54 pm 52. tim maguire:

As usual, the New York Times editors undermine their argument by blathering on about something they know nothing about. If they want to opine on the Geneva Conventions, they should first do something they obviously didn’t do–read it.

It’s too bad because possible illegal torture is an important issue that we ignore to our detriment. Even if one accepts the “ticking bomb” scenario as sufficient justification to torture, it’s important to remember that, in this case, the standards for arrest were such that many people brought in had done nothing wrong and had no information to offer.

Further, intelligence collected through torture is inherently suspect, torture compromises our moral standing in the world (which should matter at least a little bit), and engaging in it may and probably will endanger our soldiers on other battle fields in the future, even if not here.

If torture was beneath George Washington, then it should be beneath us. Certainly his struggle was at least as great.

Dec 19, 2008 - 2:10 pm 53. Dark Helmet:

This is quite simple, no successful attacks since 9/11/01.

Hurray for our side and thank you God for what ever we used to make that happen.

You do not set out to make an animal mad so that you have to kill it. The choice is made for you as to what the reality on the ground is while being charged. It is up to you if you want to live.

I do.

Thank you to every single person who ever made a mooslime scream in pain to keep my country safe from all those who live to die.

There is no thing or no limit as to what is acceptable to that end. None.

If it takes being the worst, then your enemy is the one who decides who you must be in dealing with them. Either you win or you die.

The rest of you whiny babies who have never had to do anything more for yourself than order a pizza because your power went out, piss off. Go live where the people come from who are raising babies to murder us.

Don’t any of you ever f*cking dare to complain about the men who stand on the wall so that you can sit in your safe homes, fat and soft watching America’s biggest loser. It’s you by the way.

Dec 19, 2008 - 2:42 pm 54. G.R. Mead:

How many times was it drilled into us service members that the regular uniform was our ONLY protection against legitimate execution for espionage in time of war, should the enemy catch us (or desertion for that matter should our own catch us.)? H

Having been the beneficiary of SERE training, I will not comment on its content or methods, nor should anyone else so as to endanger the troops who have and contiunue to rely on it. But having said that it is completely irrational to contend that we can “torture” our own for training while not using the same method for interrogation of enemies who are not soldiers of a high contracting party to a treaty such as the Geneva Convention.

Laws have consequences, and the Geneva Convention is our law by treaty. If we follow the Geneva rules without regard to whether combatants are the legitimate combatants of a signatory and abiding by its rules, what incentive is there for ANY nation to abide by those rules with regard to our own soldiers? They can flout them with impunity — because we will not no matter what? If a combatant takes arms without the benefit of the uniform of a sovereign nation signatory to that pact he is subject to death upon defeat in battle and is NOT entitled to anything else under our law. Anything less, than that, anything less, is a matter of our mercy and conscience and the needful circumstance of the case — and nothing else.

Anybody who does not understand this — does not understand war, and how such mercy and honor as may be found in its necessary brutality are actually enforced and encouraged.

Legal theories don’t fight.

Dec 19, 2008 - 2:51 pm 55. ReConUSMC:

52. tim maguire:
If torture was beneath George Washington, then it should be beneath us. Certainly his struggle was at least as great.
______________________________
Surly your not comparing England that Fought in Straight lines and open fields with AL QUADA OF TODAY ARE YOU ? Your sadly amazing but that is normal for a Liberal that loves our enemies but never our own troops .
YOU KNOW NO HISTORY ….. WASHINGTON HAD SEVERAL OF OUR DESERTERS EXECUTED IN FRONT OF A FIRING SQUARE AS DID LINCOLN AND LIED ABOUT MANY ISSUES INCLUDING HIS PAST YOUNGER LIFE .DUH !
LINCOLN ALLOWED 112 Thousand Southners to freeze ad stave to death . Not to mention burning the south major cites and allowing CARPET BAGGING all over the South .
Plus Lincoln broke 21 Constitutional laws like HABOUS CORPUS for starters and notifying Congress on 7 WAR issues Congress was suppose to Vote on . His own party wanted to fire him .
Yet Washington and Lincoln rank in out top 5 Presidents because they won lefty !!!!
PACIFIST LIBERALS ARE OUR ENEMIES BEST FRIENDS and quite Dumb to boot .

Dec 19, 2008 - 2:57 pm 56. aleamas:

To argue that torture is allowable and if it is against the law, so what, change the law is reprehensible. Those of you who commented to that effect would make fine Nazis, but make sad Americans.

Dec 19, 2008 - 3:04 pm 57. NickFFF:

To all the questions along the lines of….

“AQ don’t give a damn about the Geneva Conventions so why should we?”

Becuase we’re better than them is why.

Dec 19, 2008 - 3:07 pm 58. Marie Claude:

one mustn’t confound laws in a peace time and exceptional laws in a war time, I am not asking that our constitution, that allow these, changes

Dec 19, 2008 - 3:24 pm 59. Thinking Person:

Pat J…I’d love to hear your bleeding heart liberal opinion as to what one should do to the sub-humans who laid hands on Daniel Pearl? Would Barry Manilow music have sufficed? Perhaps a few drops of water on the forehead might have been a bit too brutal? You’re the type that lets child molesters back out for exhibiting “good behavior” in prison. Pathetic.

Dec 19, 2008 - 3:34 pm 60. robotech master:

So I guess part 2.

Their are alot of myths and propaganda surrounding this issue.

First to address the many pro-terrorist arguments written about the GC1-4. While you find these pro-terrorist op-eds everywhere you don’t find any on real violations of the GC.

The most recent attempt was made by Democrat/pro-terrorist groups was trying to give POW status to terrorist. This is a huge and clear violation of the GC. The GC is very very clear on what a POW is in GC3-article 4. Their is no debate no wiggle room no nothing…

The fact that Democrats and pro-terrorist groups want to pass a law that is in clear violation of the GC is unheard of… in more then one way. Where are the op-eds about them breaking the GC, where are the cries of the defenders of the GC who seem to have never read it. Their are none… silence on a issue that clearly violates the GC. The media doesn’t care if the GC is violated they only care in protecting terrorists and pushing anti-US propaganda. Like everything the UN does, it most of all is designed to give 3rd world dictators, terrorists and anti-US ppl the propaganda basis to attack the US.

It has a clear agenda to it though. The agenda is simple, leftists, anti-US and pro-terrorists groups see no difference between a US soldier and a terrorist blowing up a school bus with a bunch of 12 year old kids on it. In fact in their eyes the US soldier is worse. They refuse to accept that a US soldier or for that matter any soldier is anything but a terrorist. This in turns leads them to believe that since a terrorist and a soldier are one in the same in their mind why are they not protected equally.

Trying to get POW status for terrorists is just another in a long line of attempts by these groups to make the line between terrorist school bus bomber and US soldier as blurred as they possible can.

Another argument raise is the

2. It leads often to inaccurate information as the the person being tortured will say anything to escape further torture.

This is a classic anti-torture propaganda piece designed around 2 true statements however when combined together through slight of hand become false.

All forms of information gather produce alot of inaccurate information…thats a simple fact of life.
Also in turn yes ppl will say anything to stop being tortured… including the truth.

The problem with the combined statement is that it implies very much the opposite of what the statements themselves say. It tries to imply that torture is the cause of inaccurate information… which is not the case.

Torture in fact provide very very accurate information. This is a proven fact time and time again. During/pre-Vietnam the soldiers code was along the lines of(trying to find links however google propaganda censorship is in full swing and all I get is anti-war garbage when I try to find the info)

“I will resist torture and never give up any information”

Many soldiers returning as POW came back as broken ppl because they resisted to the very end. Worse were the ppl who resist with everything they had and fail. They often came back and had many issues to include blaming themselves for failing to resist torture, blaming themselves for the death of unit member(even when they were clearly not at fault), along with a host of other issues.

The army changed the code to along the lines of

“I will resist torture for as long as I can”

This gave soldiers the out let for when needed to not blame themselves and to protect themselves both while being tortured as well as after they are released.

The simple fact is 90%+ of ppl will break under torture and give of truthful information. Anyone who has even the most basic understanding of torture understands this… you will break.

Lets break down some basic torture and interrogation situations.

First the classic mugging.

A mugger jumps someone and steals their wallet. He starts beating him demanding his PIN number for the ATM. The mugger is on a very short time scale and has no way to check to see if the PIN number given is legit… he gets a number any number and leaves.

In this case torture is not effective because their is no reference nor is their time. This is pretty much the only time torture isn’t effective.

Next we move on to a bank robbery.

A bank robber breaks into a bank. He demands that the safe be opened. The manager says he can’t open the safe because it has a time lock. The manager doesn’t know that the person robbing the bank is a fired safe builder… who built the very safe in the bank. The robber starts beating the manager demanding the combo. The manager gives a fake combo starting with an even number. The robber knows that for this type of safe the combo always starts out as a odd number. He doesn’t even check the safe. He beats the manager some more and tell him he knows the combo starts with an odd and says if doesn’t give the combo correctly next time hes going to shoot him in the foot. At this point 90%+ of ppl are going to give up the combo. Even if the manager holds out its only a matter of time before he gives in.

The important thing with this situation is reference and time. The robber has reference in that he has some knowledge of the safe but more importantly he can go over to the safe and try the combo. He has time to escalate the pain through a series of ever increasing steps. The manager will give in it only a matter of time. He can lie as much as he wants but that will only stop the pain for a few moments… however it will also lead to increased pain once restarted.

Next let move on to a more classic interrogation.

An interrogator and subject start out. The interrogator knows a great deal about the subject/subject’s history. In the opening exchanging the interrogator will only ask questions that he already knows the answer to. This means that he can judge how much of what the subject is saying is the truth. Since the subject doesn’t know anything about the interrogator or the knowledge he has… lies are spotted easily… and then punished. After the interrogator feels the subject is speaking the truth he moves on to more questionable info where he’s has one or 2 sources but still isn’t sure if the information from the other sources is correct. The answers are referenced and reward/punishment given based on it. Then after the interrogator feels very comfortable with the subject he start to gather unknown information from him. Normally if done correctly this information is very very accurate.

You see because they use reference and tactics lies are spotted and real intel and researched and applied to field actions. Their is very very little chance if done correctly that information would be worthless/mostly comprised of lies.

“3. Better information can be gained by legal means.”

Not really torture is the most effective way to gain information period unless down wrong. Being that you can’t subpoena bin liden into court what information can you really get legally… the whole point of legal stuff is to protect a person’s right private info…at least in civ court for US civs…

4. The use of torture brings us down to the same level as the terrorists and cripples our ability to portray the US as a country of laws.

Conflicting view points… torture can be legal thus the US even torturing ppl would be a country of laws…

5. When you bring the terrorist to trial you can not use the evidence gained as it is tainted

Not really I whole heartily agree that any “confession” made during/after any form of torture shouldn’t be a legal sign of guilt… however let say he gives up a major cell… the cell location is raided and you find a video tape with your subject on it building a bomb. From the video you see a SSN on a piece of the bomb. This same SSN appears on a exploded bomb used in an attack. The video is not tainted at all and can be used to prove that the subject is connected to the bombing.

Another classic argument is this “and engaging in it will endanger our soldiers on other battle fields in the future.”

This is the prefect strawman argument for ppl who have very little historic knowledge. The last nation/group to even remotely follow the GC, treat prisoners/civs reasonable well that the US fought was hitler’s germany(ironic isn’t it). Never after that has any group payed more then lip service for propaganda purposes to the GC or other treaties. So unless the US starts on planning to invade europe again… the US is never going to be fighting someone thats going to obey/be bound by/apply the GC or any of the hippy UN BS treaties. So the question becomes… since US soldiers aren’t going to benefit from any of these treaties anyway why argue the the future danger… even if we banned torture of any form(even the redefined “we must give them cable TV or its torture”) that doesn’t do anything for US soldiers in the future… they still will be tortured and they still won’t get any of the GC/UN/etc rights their suppose to get.

So once again though you handicap soldiers which causes them more pain and death for the sole benefit of the enemy… thats not how you fight a war… at least not how you fight to win.

I don’t believe in torture in the sense of the true meaning(unless were talking nukes then its pretty much open season)… pissing in some terrorist’s cheerios from time to time isn’t torture.

I have yet to see ever a logical argument against torture… I have only seen alot of emotional BS, propaganda, lies, and a host of slight of hands point of views/redefining of issues to support the anti-”torture” ideal.

Dec 19, 2008 - 4:31 pm 61. Tonto (USA):

The pics I saw looked more like college frat boys playing at grab ass. I do think that guards were probably much more lenient with arab prisoners then they are with American military prisoners are treated in our military stockades, and I’m sure the arabs took every advantage and opportunity to insult, curse, degrade and attempt to intimidate the people guarding them. I personally think that insult and attempted intimidation should be met with a complete ass-kicking on the prisoner. In the American military, those arabs would have had all the push-ups and “little red chairs” in the world to help them reconsider their actions. They really got off easy as pie, and have nothing to bitch about.

Dec 19, 2008 - 4:37 pm 62. cedarford:

NickFFF:
To all the questions along the lines of….

“AQ don’t give a damn about the Geneva Conventions so why should we?”

Becuase we’re better than them is why.

That is an exceptionally stupid appeal to both emotionalism AND elitism.

In war and in many other matters in life each person may have experienced, deterrence only exists when there is an expectation of reciprocity…measured, unpleasant actions in response to unpleasant actions.
The Drafters of Geneva were smarter than the UN bureaucrats who insist on passivity in the face of butchery, of the Left and Milquetoast Christians that think groveling and submission somehow win bonus points from the bully up to the mass murderer.
Or that somehow people later looking at the mass graves of people that didn’t fight back or the spittle dripping kid that didn’t stand up to a bully…will say “such nobility! such a moral high ground not to sink to the bully or mass killers level….”

Deterrance is established by reciprocity. Our failure..abetted by the ACLU, liberal Jewish human rights groups, Euro Left, and 5 SCOTUS justices pretty much sets the template for future combat ops against the US. Since there is no consequence for failing to wear uniforms, doing gruesome tortures of US troops or civilians, no consequences to getting caught but a prison better than 99% of people in the world enjoy – then in the future, be assured treating Americans that way is risk-free but for occasional “pinpoint bombing”. And kill American and Western families because you will have all sorts of terrorist rights Lovers demanding that your family be safe from retaliation since “Americans should be so much better than them”.

I shudder to think of how people like NickFFF would respond to nuke bombs going off in 4-5 US cities. The fires would still be burning, the survivors battling radiation sickness about the same time such moral elitists began arguing hysterically that “We Are Better” than retaliating and “perpetuating the cycle of violence” by “nuking innocent Jihadi fighter’s families”. And —we would be Soooooooo admired by future generations of “the moral center of us all, the UN..” if we just sought out the culpable few and gave them 5-7 years of due process litigation then “humanely imprisoned them”.

If you allow the other side to kill away or violate Geneva with impunity…you only introduce “perverse incentives” for others to fight in exactly the same manner.

Nor will any future enemy feel “historical gratitude” for us being so compassionate to past enemy prisoners obligating them. It never works that way….think of an enemy thinking of executing US prisoners who know full well the US refused to do the same in kind to similar enemy brutalities in 4-5 previous conflicts. You can kill the American soldiers and/or civilians and feel pretty safe that the pattern of US behavior will hold and your side is safe to be killing them…and if worse comes to worse, you will be caught then slathered up with lawyers and NYC types defending you for years and years to come and your being a prisoner will cost the American enemy millions to house or try you. And if the worst happens after you bleed the American enemy in his pathetic courts and enemy-loving media – well, then you are a famous martyr or a celebrity prisoner free to study the Holy Qu’ran, enjoy three Halal meals a day, and answer letters from NYC types asking if your jail conditions are to your satisfaction….

Because America is Better Than That….

Dec 19, 2008 - 4:45 pm 63. Doc99:

Smerconish vs. Hitchens on Hardball makes for riveting video.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/12/17/smerconish-when-it-comes-to-torturing-al-qaeda-anything-goes/

Allan Dershowitz made some of these points with Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/17/60minutes/main324751.shtml

Dec 19, 2008 - 5:13 pm 64. malclave:

US law on torture: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html

It defines torture as, among other things, “the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering”.

I haven’t read the PDF report yet. I plan to do that before coming to any conclusions. I’m a little wary of the source being Sen. Levin’s “newsroom” page, but I’ll try to look for actual facts in the document and hope to disregard any partisan rhetoric.

I’m sure the NY Times is perfectly capable, at least most of the time, of printing the latest sports scores, weather prediction, and Doonesbury cartoon. As far as political commentary goes, they’re as credible as TMZ. Their editorial is meaningless.

Dec 19, 2008 - 5:22 pm 65. Dark Helmet:

cedarford, you are not only a traitor, you are a delusional one. Your entire mode is to slam this administration any way and from any angle that you can. I’ve seen enough of your garbage to see through you.

Dec 19, 2008 - 5:25 pm 66. Texas4ever:

For those saying torture does not work. If you mean that confessions derived by torture don’t work you may have a case. On the other hand as with KSM he had already confessed publicly prior to capture. He was water-boarded for information about Al Qaeda and any planned attacks. Once he gave the information and it was checked out as correct his interrogation ended. There was NO effort to beat a confession out of him since he was already on record for the crimes he will be tried for. I know of no case published that “torture” was used to get a confession from any of the GITMO detainees. The very act of being captured on the battlefield was all the confession required for prosecution by military tribunal.

Dec 19, 2008 - 5:33 pm 67. DoesNotMatter:

@62

Would you quit harping on the jews ?

Think about the typical background for a white liberal: You will rarely find the offspring of blue collar among them (unless the parents send him/her to college for “education” – bad deal they got there).

Liberal usually are second+ generation off spring of well offs who have nothing worthwile to do or experience.

Now consider this: Ever since christianity came into worldly power, or at least for the longest time, there was a ban on christians being, in effect, bankers (No taking interest allowed). That, combined with a ban on jews doing menial ( butcher, carpenting etc.) work for christians, and no such restrictions on brainy (doctor, mostly) services rendered by jews to christians served to concentrate prominent jewish families in the classic breeding ground for liberal braindeads: Money and education, going back centuries.
I bet that if you were to interact with actual blue collar jews you’d soon find that they’re just like you and me. They just unfortunate that a rather big, at least in western eyes, part of their “family” is prominently liberal.

What you are complaining about are liberal jews, which means that for them their lineage only is interesting when they need something to feel sorry for (Isreal tut tut) or to hide behind in case of criticsm – which every liberal except a white male (Because a white male is always guilty, liberal mantra #2) will do if they have an background that allows that.

Dec 19, 2008 - 5:37 pm 68. Michael Adams:

Yes, of course, the Geneva Conventions specifically exclude out-of-uniform terrorists. Read it, the links have already been supplied. So,if the law is the law, the law excludes them.

Second, that stupid NY Times editorial is still floating around and being cited, not as an opinion, but as a source of information. The guards in the East Wing on the second shift at Abu Ghreib had not read any directives from Alberto Gonzales nor VP Cheney nor any of their underlings. If they had, they still would not have found any authorization to torture anyone,nor to be drunk on duty, nor to engage in sexual intercourse while on duty, whether in sight of any prisoners or not. Their lawyers said, on the equivalent of the courthouse steps, that these delinquent guards were following orders. The accused guards would surely have been able to deal themselves a lighter sentence if they had named any names, under oath. However, under oath, under penalty for perjury, they said nothing. Oh, sure they made the allegations out of court. They were not intimidated enough to refrain from that. Still, under oath, nothing.

Finally, the Abu Ghreib prisoners were neither POW’s nor terror suspects. They were arrested for civil crimes, mostly if not entirely committed against other Iraqis. The Left has never refrained from lying hype to hurt the war effort. Knowing this, remembering what happened, what even Lefties admitted in other ocntexts, I will always despise them.

Dec 19, 2008 - 6:24 pm 69. aleamas:

Wow–it this how far conservatives have fallen? It is “exceptionally stupid,” and “emotionalism” and “elitism” to take a principaled stand against torture? Are you joking ? This is a case that you lost long ago. Civilized societies do not torture. Period. All of your weak, albiet elaborate(and long winded), justifications and ad hominum attacks make exactly zero difference. You know that torture is wrong or you are no better a human being that the terrorists you deride.

Dec 19, 2008 - 6:29 pm 70. lewy14:

Fearless prediction: the decision by the Obama administration to prosecute will be entirely political.

Specifically, it will hinge on how close the Blago investigation gets to Obama.

Also, how much of a distraction it, and other Democrat scandals, creates.

If necessary, Obama will go after Rumsfeld and Cheney to throw people off the scent of the stink coming from his own party.

Otherwise, it won’t be worth his time.

Dec 19, 2008 - 6:57 pm 71. ReConUSMC:

69. aleamas:
Wow–it this how far conservatives have fallen? It is “exceptionally stupid,” and “emotionalism” and “elitism” to take a principaled stand against torture? Are you joking ? This is a case that you lost long ago. Civilized societies do not torture. Period. All of your weak, albiet elaborate(and long winded), justifications and ad hominum attacks make exactly zero difference. You know that torture is wrong or you are no better a human being that the terrorists you deride.
______________
AL Quada and the Teliban . Suicide Bomb …………….. Torture All you Moron …. Be-Head , Stone and whip women to death !
Always have and always will ………
You can stay on Mom’s milk gland Ok You Moron !

Dec 19, 2008 - 7:01 pm 72. momof3:

I for one don’t care if someone who has stated their goal is to destroy America, is tortured to get information. What happens at Gitmo has about as much in common with real torture as I have in common with Paris Hilton. Holding painful positions for extended periods of time, and being unclothed in front of strangers, and getting poked at? Gee, sounds a lot like childbirth to me. And don’t get me started on sleep deprivation. If you’ve never had sick infant twins, you don’t know the meaning of the word.

Just another case of the libs feeling guilty for existing, and wanting to hand our country over as soon as possible. I am doubly amused by these pro-abortion anti-religion types saying it’s unchristian. I am christian, and even if one discounts the complete massacres ordered and carried out against enemies in the Old testament, The New Testament is pretty clear on defending oneself. ‘Turn the other cheek” has got to be the single most misquoted sentence ever in the history of man.

Feeling superior to others who are brutal is easy, until it’s someone you love on the line. A problem we could drastically reduce, with mandatory military service for all young-adult Americans.

Dec 19, 2008 - 7:23 pm 73. Marie Claude:

what some nice people can do to you and or to your soldiers

http://img117.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aqtortureste4.jpg

Dec 19, 2008 - 7:43 pm 74. tanstaafl:

The report shows how actions by these men (Rumsfeld, Gonzales etc.) “led directly” to what happened at Abu Ghraib…

Gee, and all this time I thought it was the idiotic actions of some immature individuals in a reserve unit, like Lynndie England and her boyfriend* and others, getting off on middle of the night power trips. With maybe a sprinkling of incompetence from Col. Janis Karpinski, “in charge” at the time at Abu Ghraib.

*you know, the people who were convicted and actually dun time over their outrageous and stupid behaviors ?

KSM, “mastermind” of 911 (he loves being called a MM) and some earlier plane incident, slaughterer of Daniel Pearl ? Nothing’s too good for that guy. Reportedly, his uncomfortable sessions with interrogators led to valuable information on AQ, but, even if they didn’t, I’d still have no compunctions about anything related to his treatment.

(these days, he and some other Guantanamo guys have been asking for martyrdom, their hatred for America undimmed by anything that might have been done to them in captivity)

The entire “torture” controversy is so completely spun out of politically correct control. It’s actually torture reading all this stuff.

Dec 19, 2008 - 7:58 pm 75. Yknot:

Torture is immoral, un-American, anti-Christian, and just plain wrong.To defend it is to deny Christ and every thing our Founding Fathers stood for. Those that do should be ashamed.

Dec 19, 2008 - 8:13 pm 76. Mark Epstein:

It’s not just the torture issue, it’s American arrogance and naivete in general. We are clueless as to how the rest of the world thinks and that is evident in our own backyard, as we ignore our own Constitution and our judges forget its history on a routine basis. American torture is but a symptom of a deeper problem.

Is the West’s “view” the “best” view

Dec 19, 2008 - 8:25 pm 77. Robert Hurley:

I get the feeling most of you guys would feel right at home with the
taliban. You beliefs on torture echo theirs.

Dec 19, 2008 - 8:56 pm 78. robotech master:

To 76. Mark Epstein

I suppose after torture will you demand that we disarm our nukes as well… MADD doesn’t just apply on the large scale. Torture is no different then launching nukes… Its not the most moral choice but real life doesn’t give ppl the choice to be moral and survive all the time.

Also I find your statement and article amusing… and self contradicting… its both arrogant and naive to believe that the US should ban every single form of discomfort from our enemies lives…

Dec 19, 2008 - 9:21 pm 79. Morton Doodslag:

Praised.

Dec 20, 2008 - 12:04 am 80. Terry Gain:

malclave:

US law on torture: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html

It defines torture as, among other things, “the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering”.
—

Thank you for keeping the debate on track. This is my understanding of the meaning of torture. Since waterboarding is intended to extract information rather than inflict pain or suffering and since the adverse effect of the technique is only temporary fright I refuse to allow liberals to win this debate by giving words incorrect new meanings that suit their intellectually dishonest arguments.

Torture is wrong and should never be used except in the limited exigent situations described by Dershowitz but waterboarding is not torture and the Taliban and al Qaeda are not entitled to the benefit of The Geneva Converntion, nor should they be unless your intention is to undermine it.

America is better than to allow liberals to defame with politically motivated, dishonest characterizations, those who have honorably defended America and the world over the past 7 years from the attempts to turn civilzation back to the 7th century.

Don’t allow liberals to win this argument by acknowledging that the Bush administration has condoned torture. It has not. The waterboarding of 3 al Qaeda leaders was necessary and justified, but it was not torture.

Those who put the comfort of KSM on a higher plane than the lives of his intended victims are lacking a moral comapass and the the ability to think logically about this subject.

Dec 20, 2008 - 3:05 am 81. Jack Jolis:

1/ Both Republican and Democrat-controlled Congresses have had repeated opportunities to specifically outlaw “waterboarding”. They has always declined to do so.

2/ None of the detainees in question, whether captured in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere (except for those uniformed members of the Iraqi Army captured in the first weeks of the war, and long-since either charged or released) are covered by any of the supposedly relevant Geneva Conventions.

3/ No one in Guantanamo has been tortured.

4/ The unauthorized idiocy performed by a group of un-trained jerk National Guard MPs at Abu Ghraib also was not “torture”, although it was abusive. But calamitous as it was for our image, it had absolutely nothing to do with “interrogation” or “interrogation techniques”.

5/ The only real torture in this whole trumped-up “debate” is to have to listen to the sactimonious faux-morality and reckless self-delusion of the likes of Mr. Moran.

Dec 20, 2008 - 3:44 am 82. Jack Jolis:

1/ Both Republican and Democrat-controlled Congresses have had repeated opportunities to specifically outlaw “waterboarding”. They have always declined to do so.

2/ None of the detainees in question, whether captured in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere (except for those uniformed members of the Iraqi Army captured in the first weeks of the war, and long-since either charged or released) are covered by any of the supposedly relevant Geneva Conventions.

3/ No one in Guantanamo has been tortured.

4/ The unauthorized idiocy performed by a group of un-trained jerk National Guard MPs at Abu Ghraib also was not “torture”, although it was abusive. But calamitous as it was for our image, it had absolutely nothing to do with “interrogation” or “interrogation techniques”.

5/ The only real torture in this whole trumped-up “debate” is to have to listen to the sactimonious faux-morality and reckless self-delusion of the likes of Mr. Moran.

Dec 20, 2008 - 3:46 am 83. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Robert Hurley
RE: You’re Right

Chuck – I don’t have to prove anything to you. — Robert Hurley

You already have proven enough with your manifestly unchristian comportment here.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[A tree is known by its fruit. -- The Christ]

Dec 20, 2008 - 6:34 am 84. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: What IS ‘Torture’?

As I mentioned in comment #2 (above), ‘torture’ is in the eye of the beholder.

A lot of people around here a pissing and moaning about ‘torture’, but hardly ANYONE has described what is ‘torture’ in the first place.

This discussion is like blind-men describing an elephant….speaking in ‘tongues’.

So….

…in order to grasp what we’re all trying to discuss here, it would be a GOOD IDEA if you described your idea of ‘torture’.

Is it having to sit through a Barry Manilow concert? [Note: Or Yoni?]

Having to live in America with Bush as president?

Being in a confined space?

Seeing your favorite book in a toilet?

Being cuffed, shackled and hooded?

Electro-shock ‘therapy’? [Note: I did the picture thing, without a hood and wearing a parachute pack loaded with cinder-blocks and large chunks of metal.]

Having your neck cut open with a dull knife?

Fed through a wood shredder feet-first?

What IS ‘torture’ in your opinion?

Please be specific when you piss and moan about it, just so we can ‘appreciate’ your position.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The devil is ALWAYS in the details.]

Dec 20, 2008 - 6:41 am 85. susan:

from my country, italy, land of catholicism: Robert hurley, the catholic church used to excommunicate communists.

This is the simple reason why you cannot be catholic.

Dec 20, 2008 - 8:12 am 86. Chris in Toronto:

As so many commenters have already pointed out, this argument is based entirely on moral equivalency and heavily reliant on political correctness. Lots can be said about both of those issues and has been. Their aim is to undermine rational thought in effort to foster the revolution, by constructing an alternate “reality”. Everywhere we look in the political world we see proof of one underlying fact: we are at a moment in history where we are witness to reality crashing headlong into a wall of wishful thinking.

What is heartening is that, now, people are examining for themselves the events and circumstances surrounding them. They are taking notice of the fact that they need to determine what is “the reality of the situation”, in order to survive the unfolding historical “correction”. Others have already been intimately exposed the dose of reality that is hitting us as we approach the end of the first decade of the intertwined, global 21st century. That, inevitably leads to a realization of the primacy of the law of identity.

We are finally going to see the masks come down, the faces of good and evil in full view, exposing the rot and decay–plastered over to hide successive layers of filler and spackle and every four years a coat of new wallpaper–to the sterilizing light of reason. The memes of the collectivists will be flying as bricks blown asunder from the wall of wishful thinking as it is obliterated by the runaway train of reality.,

Torture is, as pointed out earlier (by chuck @2), subjective. Subjectivity is that fecund field in which the weeds of moral equivalency and political correctness flourish, the pretty flowers at the base of that wall of wishful thinking. Having your head sawed off under a dull blade is torture. Objectively. Having your fingernails pulled out, slowly while strapped to a dentist chair is torture. Objectively. Waterboarding is torture. Subjectively! Subjectively because one can be trained, as attested to by (ReConUSMC @35), to emerge from the experience unscathed, mentally and physically.

So many commenters have already pointed out the manifest differences. There is no moral equivalency here. Your faith and decency hold all to be equal, while theirs does not. Your faith and humanity abhor violence and aver dignity and forgiveness, while theirs instills violence as duty and swears revenge. Your faith and humanity abjures blowing up innocents, theirs glorifies it. These are not the same. These are, however, some of the bricks.

Dec 20, 2008 - 1:06 pm 87. WestGuard:

Frat house pranks are considered torture?
Where were the reports of hammers, saws, hedge clippers, blowtorches, I was expecting to hear about when the news broke about this terrible torture going on at Gitmo? Not even a lone rubber hose or pair of brass knuckles were employed?
Talk about much ado about nothing. The stupid whistle blower who cried wolf and brought a world of trouble upon us at a time of war is the one who should be paraded around town with a pair of panties on his head.

Dec 20, 2008 - 10:55 pm 88. Chuck Pelto:

TO: WestGuard
RE: Heh

….is the one who should be paraded around town with a pair of panties on his head. — WestGuard

….soiled ones at that.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Change your mind, it's starting to smell.]

Dec 21, 2008 - 6:23 am 89. don:

There is a difference between moral relativism–it’s all good– and epistemological relativism–what’s true in Baghdad is false in San Francisco. This applies to torture too. For example, you can torture a masochist by refusing to torture a masochist; and when you do torture a masochist can it really be said to be torture? Much of the rhetoric against torture, or water boarding, seems to assume an idyllic social reality absent of all torture for cheap partisan political points. Even the modern American custodial restraint chair or four point restraints or the strait jacket is torture, depending on your point of view and where you sit; it’s all relative, but those devices are used in liberal San Francisco too. Get over it.

Dec 21, 2008 - 3:25 pm 90. David S:

And what of the detainees who have died from being beaten while in custody? Are we to ignore that US troops are murdering people?

How is this legal, or more acceptable than the beheadings conducted by our enemies?

It seems to me that torture is always going to violate the GC or the Constitution. And to what end? There is no honor on destroying the Republic to save it.

DS

Dec 21, 2008 - 3:48 pm 91. Chuck Pelto:

TO: David S
RE: Name Them

And what of the detainees who have died from being beaten while in custody? — David S

Please provide names, dates, places, circumstances and reports.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Please point out how they are protected by the Geneva Conventions.

Dec 21, 2008 - 6:46 pm 92. Don Kenner:

“Are we to ignore that US troops are murdering people?”

Which idiotic, fabricated, money-losing Hollywood movie did you get that from?

“It seems to me that torture is always going to violate the GC or the Constitution.”

At least you let us know in what order of importance you put those two documents.

I guess we should apologize to the Nazis; most of what we did to win that war would be unacceptable to modern liberals. We are so screwed. And the sad thing is, we deserve it.

Dec 21, 2008 - 6:58 pm 93. David S:

Chuck,

You asked. Here are 5 dead detainees:

Five Guantánamo prisoners are known to have died in custody. They were

ABDUL RAHMAN MA ATH THAFIR AL AMRI
ABDUL RAZZAK
ALI ABDULLAH AHMED
MANA SHAMAN ALLABARDI AL TABI (or MANI SHAMAN TURKI AL HABARDI or MANI SHAMAN TURKI ALUTAYBI)
YASSER TALAL AL ZAHRANI

http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/projects/the-guantanamo-testimonials-project/testimonies/prisoner-testimonies/deaths-in-custody/guantananmo-deaths-in-custody

A reading of the declassified portions of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service file released by the Department of Defense under a FOIA request raises a few questions, namely:

Why did the prisoners have their hands tied when they were found hanging in their cells (pp. 95, 192, 245)?
Could they have hanged themselves bound in this way?
Why was there a bloody T-shirt around the neck of one of the prisoners found hanging in his cell (p. 334)?
Why is there a page missing from the log that recorded the entries and exits to the cell block were the suicides took place on the day the suicides took place (p. 390)?

and that is just at Guantanamo. If you want to go into details for Iraq and Afghanistan, we could be here a while.

DS

PS-

Geneva Convention applies for many “enemy combatants” until they have faced a competent tribunal, as no belligerent act has even been alleged, they cannot be considered belligerent:

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Don,

See above. Information is from the Department of Defense. I’m not really a big movie-goer. I offered GC and USC in no particular order. I just think the Constitution always gets the final say when it comes to US actions. According to the 8th amendment, cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited. You can argue until you are blue in the face that “interrogation is not punishment”, and I will point you to the provisions on self-incrimination and a speedy trial. You can dispute that the persons in custody are criminals, but then you need to show me that they are part of a military. You can’t arbitrarily classify people outside of any existing legal system and then abuse them at your pleasure. The US Constitution is what the Commander in Chief is supposed to protect and defend.

Also, you should be apologizing to liberals – after all, it was FDR that helped put the Nazis out of business with socialist military spending. Prescott Bush just wanted to make a buck like all his banker friends by funding the Nazi war preparations – and set in motion a political dynasty that still is wrecking our country today. Think about it.

Peace.

DS

PS – You are the one that says we deserve it. Tell me: What are you going to do about it?

Dec 21, 2008 - 11:13 pm 94. Dave Surls:

The same guys (liberal Democrats) who atom-bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, frying a couple of hundred Japanese civilians, are now complaining about the atrocity of ducking a few terrorists’ heads under water.

You couldn’t make this stuff up.

Dec 22, 2008 - 1:30 am 95. Chuck Pelto:

TO: David S
RE: Five Dead In Guantanamo

You asked. Here are 5 dead detainees:

Five Guantánamo prisoners are known to have died in custody. They were

ABDUL RAHMAN MA ATH THAFIR AL AMRI
ABDUL RAZZAK
ALI ABDULLAH AHMED
MANA SHAMAN ALLABARDI AL TABI (or MANI SHAMAN TURKI AL HABARDI or MANI SHAMAN TURKI ALUTAYBI)
YASSER TALAL AL ZAHRANI
— David S

Interesting report. I’d heard of several such deaths. But not so much their names. Let alone back-up information.

RE: The Link

http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/projects/the-guantanamo-testimonials-project/testimonies/prisoner-testimonies/deaths-in-custody/guantananmo-deaths-in-custody — David S

Not particularly pleased with this. I was expecting something a bit more substantial than mere links to sources of questionable back-ground and reliability.

A reading of the declassified portions of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service file released by the Department of Defense under a FOIA request raises a few questions, namely:

Why did the prisoners have their hands tied when they were found hanging in their cells (pp. 95, 192, 245)? — David S

It’s easy to have a friend tie one’s hands. Even through bars and wire.

Could they have hanged themselves bound in this way? — David S

Yes.

Why was there a bloody T-shirt around the neck of one of the prisoners found hanging in his cell (p. 334)? — David S

No idea. Could YOU explain?

Why is there a page missing from the log that recorded the entries and exits to the cell block were the suicides took place on the day the suicides took place (p. 390)? — David S

Now HERE is something interesting. Having been a Staff Duty Officer at brigade and divisional levels, this IS a serious matter. The officers of the watch and those responsible for the keeping of the journals should be thoroughly investigated.

Did all the suicides take place on the SAME DAY? If so, I suspect it WAS a mass suicide in order to make the Gitmo activity look like a damning shame. And I wouldn’t put it past a bunch of zealots like these to attempt as much.

I’m somewhat familiar with Prisoner of War camps and US prisons. [Note: Something to do with friends and associates and the study of history.] Guards can murder prisoners and have in our own prison system. However, they tend to avoid mass-murder, as it draws entirely TOO MUCH ATTENTION from outside sources.

When they do kill, it’s one at a time and far between.

Or, it’s the entire cell-block or camp.

Still and all, the loss of the official document warrants serious investigation. And, if applicable, appropriate punishment to all those responsible.

and that is just at Guantanamo. If you want to go into details for Iraq and Afghanistan, we could be here a while. — David S

Are you suggesting we should take over the way the Iraqis and Afghanis run THEIR prisons?

RE: The Geneva Convention

Geneva Convention applies for many “enemy combatants” until they have faced a competent tribunal, as no belligerent act has even been alleged, they cannot be considered belligerent: — David S

Yes. In the Geneva Convention there are many ‘combatants’. BUT all of them are recognizable on the field of battle, i.e., in combat operations.

If they are not ‘recognizable’, then they are illegal ‘enemy combatants’. And they are outside the protection of the Geneva Convention.

Furthermore, in order to be protected by the Geneva Convention, some nation state, for whom the combatants fight, MUST BE a signature of that Convention. Without such a signature, they have no protection under the Convention.

Case in point, Japan in WWII. It was not a signature of the Conventions. So US were allowed to use firebombing and flame weapons against them.

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. — David S

Who gets to provide the ‘doubt’? YOU? Try not to make me laugh. Were you anywhere near the fight?

Does YOUR doubt, or the doubt of anyone who was not there surmount the knowledge of those who were? Would your doubt hold up in a court of law?

RE: Finally

All your statements here do not relate to ‘torture’, which IS the topic of this thread. Instead, they relate to murder.

There IS something of a difference. Don’t you think? If you don’t think so, then you’re attempting the same sort of twisting and perversion of the English language that the mass-murderer, perjurer Bill Clinton attempted when he tried to re-define ‘is’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Dec 22, 2008 - 7:55 am 96. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Speaking of ‘Liberal’ Democrats

I wonder if any of these people would like to have the ‘draft’ back. And why?

I was not a big fan of the all-volunteer military forces.

Why? Because when I enlisted in 1970, I realized that the mixed draft-volunteer force provided a leavening of people who would, given the moral back-bone and disdain for the military, rat-out any malfeasance, e.g., torture and murder, perpetrated by the military.

But yet, these idiot Democrats insisted on an all-volunteer force back during the Viet Nam era. The args being that only those willing to put their lives on the line would be subject to the possibility of death.

Well…people….

…as I always say, “There are advantages and disadvantages to every possible position you can take.”

So here we have the possibility that our brave men and women are committing ‘torture’ or ‘murder’ or even both at once.

You think it’s happening? You want to stop it?

If you’ve got the gonads and the moral fortitude to do something about it, I suggest you get off your dead fourth-point-of-contact and ENLIST. Just so you can do something to prevent it.

Otherwise, you’re just a blow-hard. And you have bad-breath.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Will gutless wonders ever cease?]

Dec 22, 2008 - 8:02 am 97. Robert Hurley:

Susan – Keep up the fantasy. That way you don’t ever have to face the truth. By the way I head up a ministry in my parish.

Chuck – One one issue we agree, I believe we should have the draft. Of course my reason are completely different. It is great way of getting the truth out to the greatest number of people about what is actually happening. I served in the army for three years 1962-1965.

Dec 22, 2008 - 9:05 am 98. don:

“And what of the detainees who have died from being beaten while in custody? Are we to ignore that US troops are murdering people?

How is this legal, or more acceptable than the beheadings conducted by our enemies?

It seems to me that torture is always going to violate the GC or the Constitution. And to what end? There is no honor on destroying the Republic to save it.

DS”

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being in a peaceful civil society rule of law context; war is the absence of law. In war taking prisoners is always optional, and regardless of the Constitution or the Geneva Conventions, which are merely gentlemen’s agreements. If being humane to prisoners of war is cost effective, fine, if not, liquidate them. On this matter I’m a pragmatist; what ever works. However, I do not see any correlation between treating prisoners of war well and their reciprocal kindness in the history of American warfare. Indeed, one could conclude from the facts that being kind actually causes more brutality on the part of the enemy. Lastly, war is about doing evil, not being kind, and the failure to do evil to prevent more evil is also immoral, which is probably more of a danger to modern republics and their squeamish stomachs.

Dec 22, 2008 - 10:31 am 99. lionheart:

Assuming that all of the legal arguments that you have presented are correct, and that there is no political bias polluting the report (both of which are capable of being argued), you make a powerful case to prosecute. So stipulating the assumption, we should prosecute from a legal stand point.

However, how many American lives have been saved from the information extracted? Does that matter to you? Was the torture truly evil if the information saved your life, or more selflessly, ten thousand fellow American strangers?

I am aware that I am making the age-old argument that the end justifies the means. In 99% of the cases where this argument is used, I am on the attack, not the defense. And if there were other ways of getting this critical information, I am all for that (let’s all thank the New York Times for their treason in divulging the FISA wiretaps- if there is a hell, I hope they burn in the hottest fires, and soon).

I truly respect you, Rick, you’re consistant, and logical, and fluent, and smart. But I wonder, after Rumsfeld and Cheney are imprisoned, and all forms of discomfort are outlawed for infomation extraction, and a few years later a couple of cities are wiped out because we didn’t get the information in time- how passionate will you be in your articles excoriating the government for not being more aggressive with prisoners?

Maybe they committed a crime. If they’re tried for it, I hope I’m on the jury.

Dec 22, 2008 - 12:46 pm 100. Pat J:

re: 59. Thinking Person:
Pat J…I’d love to hear your bleeding heart liberal opinion as to what one should do to the sub-humans who laid hands on Daniel Pearl?
————————
How about captured, tried, when (not if) found guilty, either sent to prison for life or executed.

Dec 22, 2008 - 2:09 pm 101. Dave Surls:

“How about captured, tried, when (not if) found guilty, either sent to prison for life or executed.”

How about just shooting the bastards?

Works for me.

Dec 22, 2008 - 11:30 pm 102. Pat J:

How about just shooting the bastards?

Works for me.
—————-
Works for me too!

Dec 23, 2008 - 8:50 am 103. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Dave Surls
RE: It Also….

How about just shooting the bastards?

Works for me. — Dave Surls

…worked in the Philippines during the [Muslim] Moro rebellion of the early 1900s.

The report is that then Captain John ‘Black Jack’ Pershing of the US Army, captured some of the Moro ‘terrorists’. He had them tied to posts for execution by firing squad. As part the firing detail’s preparation for performing their duty, a pig was slaughtered in front of the ‘terrorists’. The firing detail coated their bullets in the blood of the slaughtered pig, then loaded their rifles and carried out their duty.

The ‘terrorism’ STOPPED.

As a result of his actions, Captain Pershing was re-called to Washington and promoted to General.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Nothing succeeds like success.]

Dec 23, 2008 - 8:55 am 104. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Robert Hurley
RE: Agreements

One one issue we agree, I believe we should have the draft. — Robert Hurley

Just goes to show people, even a stopped clock is right now and then.

RE: I Disagree

Of course my reason are completely different. It is great way of getting the truth out to the greatest number of people about what is actually happening. — Robert Hurley

I think we’re both looking at it from the same perspective and for the same reason.

During the lead-up to the May Day Riots in DC of 1971, the comrades-in-arms of my rifle platoon in 1-508 IN of the 82d Airborne Division—an admixture of volunteers and draftees who volunteered for some extra ’spice’ in their Life—agreed that if any officer gave us an order that was a direct violation of all we had been taught in the Law of Land Warfare and the Legal Use of Deadly Force, said officer was going to be in for a very interesting surprise. Maybe even so much as ‘rude’.

A lot of us knew that the draftees would be the most likely to rat-out anyone who did something particularly ‘evil’.

Hence, I see it we are in agreement over draftees being a “great way of getting the truth out to the greatest number of people”.

After all, all the people who kept the secret that the Gulf of Tonkin ‘Incident’ didn’t happen the way it was reported to Congress and the rest of US, were all ‘professionals’. [Note: A a crappy lot of human beings they were at that.]

RE: Additional Comments on the Democrats Motivation for the All-Volunteer Army

It was driven by their stupid supposition that (1) only those willing to die for their country would be put in harms way and (2) the Army couldn’t recruit enough people to field a combat force in a major engagement.

With 9/11 we saw the lie of supposition #1. Only the military on the planes and those in the Pentagon died. All the rest were civilians.

The Democrats never realized how many people do love adventure.

Now, in light of Afghanistan and Iraq, the stupid Democrats want to re-instill the draft they so despised in the 1960s. Why? Well….

….now they think Americans won’t back up a war if their sons and daughters are put in harms way.

A bunch of morons who are grasping at straws in a desperate effort to weaken this country in any way they possibly can.

RE: Personal Beliefs

I favor a variation on Robert A. Heinlein’s approach, as described in Starship Troopers. That being a Universal Governmental Service system.

Two-four years mandatory service to your country after you leave the K-12 education system.

Exceptions for people going into special areas that require higher education before serving. But, after higher education, more of an obligation to serve.

Service starts with two months of what passes for Basic Training, just to get people out of whatever set of racial/ethnic prejudices their upbringing got them into. And, it provides a good basis for teaching people that they can, as a group, be defenders of their country’s liberties. [Note: Something that would allow US another bulwark against some idiots trying to go totalitarian.]

After that, additional training in the area they are going to work in, which includes such activities as National Forest Service, VISTA, Peace Corps, General Services Administration, Border Patrol, Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Defense Logistics Agency, etc., etc., etc., etc……

After honorable service completion, voting privileges and a higher education package that resembles that given to WWII and Vietnam veterans. [Note: What is offered now 'stinks'. I got a bachelors and a masters out of mine, being a Nam Era vet.]

RE: Well….

I served in the army for three years 1962-1965. — Robert Hurley

….good on YOU! Glad to hear it. Where? When? And in what capacity?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Only Satan is all 'evil'.]

Dec 23, 2008 - 9:48 am 105. Robert Hurley:

902nd Intelligence Corps Group

Dec 23, 2008 - 10:42 am 106. Robert Hurley:

background investigations and surveillance work

Dec 23, 2008 - 10:45 am 107. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Robert Hurley
RE: [OT] Interesting Service

Not as colorful as jumping out of perfectly good aircraft in flight. But certainly challenging in its own right.

Any contact with NSA? Or WHCA?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. WHCA tried to recruit me while I was at Basic. It sounded interesting, but not quite what I was most interested in.

Dec 23, 2008 - 11:49 am 108. Robert Hurley:

It was actually pretty boring – stationed at the Pentagon

Dec 23, 2008 - 6:12 pm 109. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Robert Hurley
RE: [OT] BORing

It was actually pretty boring – stationed at the Pentagon — Robert Hurley

Gagh!

I can imagine. The only fun part would be watching full colonels playing step-and-fetch for the generals.

Glad I never got there. It was weird enough working the G3 staff as a division chief in an infantry division.

At least we could smoke in the office back then. And during half-day training this time of year we could get some REAL work done in a civilized manner.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Merry Christmas…..

Dec 24, 2008 - 7:18 am 110. C:

“I have never read an outraged New York Times article condemning North Vietnam for its treatment of McCain or ever calling for war crimes tribunals.”

It is not their job to condemn North Vietnam. The Times report what happens here. The US is not NV. We are America and we have higher standards. We can’t stoop to the level of thugs from other countries, we must be ethical at all times, even when the other side is willing to strap a bomb to himself and walking to a crowd of innocent people.

We Christians need to be more Christ like. We have to fight wars, but we don’t have to become what we hate while doing it.

Dec 24, 2008 - 2:25 pm 111. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Heh

It is not their [NYT] job to condemn North Vietnam. The Times report what happens here. — C

I guess C needs to have the NYT scrap their ‘World’ news section and fire all that staff.

Could save their sorry ass in light of their recent economic reports.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. C obviously needs to lay off of the colored chalk dust…..

Dec 24, 2008 - 3:04 pm 112. Chuck Pelto:

TO: C
RE: You Got a Mouse….

We Christians need to be more Christ like. — C

…in your pocket?

When did YOU ‘come to Christ’?

Has the Christ come in the flesh?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[A tree is known by its fruit. -- Some Wag, around 2000 years ago.]

Dec 24, 2008 - 3:05 pm 113. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Interesting Point

First Lady, Laura Bush, commented that the guy who attacked President Bush with his shoes, had more freedom than he ever had under Saddam Hussein, makes an excellent point.

If the character had made such an assault against Saddam Hussein he’d probably have been fed, feet first, through a shredding machine, with one shoe stuffed in his mouth and the other nailed to his face.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Dec 28, 2008 - 8:14 am 114. George Clarke:

Theft is against the law but when the Government steals my money that is OK because all they have to do is call it taxes and then it is OK. War is the suspension of law in order to prevail in a life and death struggle by force. If war is a suspension of law then torture to end or prevail in the war is, even if illegal, is still perfectly to be expected. To prosecute warriors for not following the rules applicable in peacetime is to me . . . just silly. If you fight a war and violate the basic requirement of the Geneva Convention of wearing a uniform and carrying the Flag of the government body you are fighting for, well then, how can you demand the Geneva protections for yourself?

This is a debate for lawyers. Not for warriors. They are two mutually exclusive groups, ultimately. I don’t know how to make it clearer. If Bush and Cheney can show they limited waterboarding to three guys who were threatening to blow up another four of our skyscrapers, then they are fully justified to me and I don’t believe any laws were broken. If a law was broken how come not Moran and not anyone else will ever quote that Law and then acknowledge in full that such laws, like Habeas Corpus to Lincoln, were not applicable in wartime?

Dec 30, 2008 - 7:54 pm 115. Chuck Pelto:

TO: George Clarke
RE: Hardly

This is a debate for lawyers. Not for warriors. — George Clarke

This is a ‘debate’ for EVERYONE. Quit trying to limit it to the ‘elite’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Dec 31, 2008 - 4:22 pm 116. David S:

@98 Don

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being in a peaceful civil society rule of law context; war is the absence of law. In war taking prisoners is always optional, and regardless of the Constitution or the Geneva Conventions, which are merely gentlemen’s agreements. If being humane to prisoners of war is cost effective, fine, if not, liquidate them. On this matter I’m a pragmatist; what ever works. However, I do not see any correlation between treating prisoners of war well and their reciprocal kindness in the history of American warfare. Indeed, one could conclude from the facts that being kind actually causes more brutality on the part of the enemy. Lastly, war is about doing evil, not being kind, and the failure to do evil to prevent more evil is also immoral, which is probably more of a danger to modern republics and their squeamish stomachs.
…
If taking prisoners is always optional, what is the purpose of the Geneva Convention? If you are a pragmatist, how is it helpful to set a precedent of murdering our captives? Would this not invite our enemies to do the same? And who decides what is ‘evil’? You?

You have expressed, in brief, what is wrong with this picture. The USA is engaged in what you call “doing evil”, and by our actions, we have invited the world to do the same to us. Bad idea.

DS

Jan 1, 2009 - 1:41 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: