The Torture Question
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Sunday, October 30, 2005 21:30
VIEWED: 10585
PAGE 10 of 16
Quote:
And you apparently have a hard time actually reading my posts.
Geezer, it was a generalised post to all those saying that 'torture' aint happening.
Maybe I shouldn't have included you as your point is not that it's not torture, but that it's not administrative policy.
For which I apologise.
Beyond that, I'm not interested in getting into an aggressive quasi insulting argument with you right now.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Okay, the talking ferret was a bit wierd...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer: The guidelines as set forth in the memo in some cases go beyond the Geneva Convention (specifically, the fear of imminent death or severe pain to the detainee or his family). Since the guidelines are more "generous" in allowable techniques than the GC, a violation of the guidelines is necessarily a violation of the GC and meets the international definition of torture.
I do have issues with the allowable techniques, but the very first issue I have with the memo is its listing as "FACT" that detainees are not covered by the GC because they are (all) "illegal combatants". This rejection of the GC is based on an ASSUMPTION that the detainess are not civilians. (And you know what happens with assumptions: They make an "ass" out of "u" and "me".) The GC specifically addresses the treatment of civilians in occupied territories www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm
The GC also addresses the treament of spies and saboteurs in occupied territories, and (except for the privilege of communication with outside parties) accords them all of the rights of "protected persons" as soon as consistent with the Security of the State (in other words, when they are no longer capable of committing acts of espionage or sabotage).
As far as the allowable techniques are concerned: Have you every been really, really cold for hours or days? Have you ever been without sleep for more than 72 hours straight? Have you had someone drip water in your nose every time you breathed in? Ever been brought to the brink of suffocation? Have you ever thought that your (or your family) was about to be tortured? Ever had a gun held to your child's head and someone pull the trigger?
The memo itself does allow that making death threats is mentioned specifically in the torture statute as inflicting mental pain and suffering and goes on to mention that bringing someone to the point of suffocation has in fact caused lasting harm. But, they excuse it all anyway because (1) we never signed a lot of the human rights treaties and (2) they're "all" illegal combatants anyway and (3) since we are only bound by the Eighth Ammendment and we're not "intentionally" doing this just to cause harm it's all OK.
This kind of worming around points of law really doesn't fool anyone. It's very clear that the point of this opinion was to provide legal cover for applying coercive tehcniques not allowed by the GC.
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What thread are you reading, because it certainly isn’t this one. There is nothing that I think is “ok” about any of this. I don’t think its “ok” that Saddam Hussein was allowed to misuse sanctions against his country for 10 years killing 1.5 million innocent Iraqis because the rest of the world couldn’t get off their righteous asses to do anything about it. Then again the only thing that could be done about it was war. Was the loss of 1.5 million Iraqi civilians “ok” to prevent war? If an innocent person gets his head sawed off, because information that might have been gained by leaning on a terrorist detainee is lost due to a lack of sufficient coercive techniques, is that “ok?” What exactly qualifies as “ok?” It doesn’t look to me like either option is necessarily “ok,” but the world isn’t going to give use the option not to choose one or the other, because we don’t like the choices.
Originally posted by citizen:
You want to justify it, for whatever reason, fine. But I still find it hard to believe that you guys think that what’s going on there, all things being equal, is 'ok'.
If you want to live in that kind of Peter Pan world, you’ll have to find a magical wardrobe.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You and Geezer always seem to link those words as if they were inseparable. So let me ask you- Are there evey any innocent detainees? If there are, is it OK to torture them? Furthermore, what good does that do?
If an innocent person gets his head sawed off, because information that might have been gained by leaning on a terrorist detainee is lost due to a lack of sufficient coercive techniques, is that “ok?”
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer: The guidelines as set forth in the memo in some cases go beyond the Geneva Convention (specifically, the fear of imminent death or severe pain to the detainee or his family). Since the guidelines are more "generous" in allowable techniques than the GC, a violation of the guidelines is necessarily a violation of the GC and meets the international definition of torture.
The guidelines in the DOD memo might exceed the GC on treatment of prisoners of war. We again enter the debate over whether prisoners in GITMO or Abu G. are prisoners of war. Exceeding the GC on treatment of prisoners of war does not, per se, make that treatment torture. Show me one place in the GC on Treatment of Prisoners of War where it specifically defines "torture". It says stuff is not permissable, but I don't recall it being called torture.
Quote:
I do have issues with the allowable techniques, but the very first issue I have with the memo is its listing as "FACT" that detainees are not covered by the GC because they are (all) "illegal combatants". This rejection of the GC is based on an ASSUMPTION that the detainess are not civilians. (And you know what happens with assumptions: They make an "ass" out of "u" and "me".) The GC specifically addresses the treatment of civilians in occupied territories www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm
Should I go through the preceding posts and quote all the instances where you "assume" I mean something I have never said? I have a long day tomorrow, so I think not. Instead, let's first let you prove that any "civilians" (proving they were actually civilians, while you're at it.) were subjected to interrogation more severe than either GC guidelines or the DOD memo (without the interrogators being charged with a crime).
Quote:
The GC also addresses the treatment of spies and saboteurs in occupied territories, and (except for the privilege of communication with outside parties) accords them all of the rights of "protected persons" as soon as consistent with the Security of the State (in other words, when they are no longer capable of committing acts of espionage or sabotage).
This again "assumes" (and we know about that, don't we?) that the spies and sabotuers were acting as agents of lawful combatants in an occupied territory, and not as non-lawful terrorists. You know what they say about assumptions.
Quote:
As far as the allowable techniques are concerned: Have you every been really, really cold for hours or days? Have you ever been without sleep for more than 72 hours straight?
Yep. in Viet Nam. Believe me, up around Hue during the monsoon, it can get really cold. It's part of a soldier's (or terrorist's) job.
Quote:
Have you had someone drip water in your nose every time you breathed in? Ever been brought to the brink of suffocation? Have you ever thought that your (or your family) was about to be tortured? Ever had a gun held to your child's head and someone pull the trigger?
Nope. Any evidence that the "water drip" was used in GITMO? Brink of suffocation is not listed as approved (without more "assumptions" on your part)I doubt that anyone at GITMO had a gun held to their child's head either.
Quote:
The memo itself does allow that making death threats is mentioned specifically in the torture statute as inflicting mental pain and suffering and goes on to mention that bringing someone to the point of suffocation has in fact caused lasting harm.
Again, please show me in the memo where bringing someone to the point of suffocation is an approved technique.
Quote:
But, they excuse it all anyway because (1) we never signed a lot of the human rights treaties and (2) they're "all" illegal combatants anyway and (3) since we are only bound by the Eighth Ammendment and we're not "intentionally" doing this just to cause harm it's all OK.
Remove the drama you inserted and that's basically what they said.
Quote:
This kind of worming around points of law really doesn't foolNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Generally I don’t think torture does any good. But if we are talking about interrogation, then I don’t really think that loosing a head so that a detainee can get a full night sleep is a fair trade.
Originally posted by SignyM:
You and Geezer always seem to link those words as if they were inseparable. So let me ask you- Are there evey any innocent detainees? If there are, is it OK to torture them? Furthermore, what good does that do?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer- The GC does not define "torture" but it prohibits it
Quote:For the definition of torture, I refer to the UN Convention, of which the USA was a party
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
Quote:You said
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person
Quote:First of all, the CG and international law recognize the general intent of "innocent until proven guilty". It is not up to me to prove that the detainees are civilians, it's up to the Armed Forces to prove that the detainees are unlawful combatants. In addition, it's not up to me to prove that civilians were subject to Class III interrogations because the memo ITSELF never distinguishes between civilians and unlawful combatants (UC). It assumes as FACT that all detainees are UC and allows Class III interrogations of everyone.
Instead, let's first let you prove that any "civilians" (proving they were actually civilians, while you're at it.) were subjected to interrogation more severe than either GC guidelines or the DOD memo (without the interrogators being charged with a crime).
You said
Quote:Well, I took you at your word and started discussing the techniques allowed in the memo, and now you're saying
If you have problems with any specific technique in the memo, I'd be glad to discuss that with you.
Quote:You changed the topic, from what was allowed by memo to what was done at Gitmo. BTW the various techniques allowed by the memo INCLUDED "water drip" to "simulate" suffocation, and INCLUDED threatening the detainee or his family with death and pain, but was not limited to those specific techniques. You said
Nope. Any evidence that the "water drip" was used in GITMO? Brink of suffocation is not listed as approved (without more "assumptions" on your part)I doubt that anyone at GITMO had a gun held to their child's head either.
Quote:and THEN you said
Show me one place in the GC on Treatment of Prisoners of War where it specifically defines "torture".
Quote:Tsk tsk. Now here I was, just discussing the points that you invited me to and here YOU are playing all kinds of legalistic word games. So much for a rational discusison! Have a nice busy day tomorrow!
Don't play word games with me.
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Now here are another two images stuck together like glue: the terrorist sleeping soundly in his comfy bed and the bloody result! I know you've been through this dicussion before, but this is not what happens. In fact, I don't know of a single terrorist act thwarted by aggressive detentions and coercive interrogation. (Oh yeah-Bush lied about that too.) What seems to happen is you get a bunch of low-level rebels, some average street thugs, neighbors who were turned in for the reward, a few innocent farmers etc etc who get kncoked around for no particular reason because these people really don't know anything.
But if we are talking about interrogation, then I don’t really think that loosing a head so that a detainee can get a full night sleep is a fair trade.
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM:
If it's illegal, file a charge. Get someone to file a charge. Anyone. Bring a case in court, any court. If you can't get an indictment, it's just supposition. convine a Grand Jury. Get a charge before the International Court at the Hague. Prove it in court. Please. If you can't meet the burden of proof it's an unsubstantiated allegation. If you prove it and a court of last resort agrees then whoopee, I approve. Otherwise it's just opinion.
You can say not providing turn-down service every night is torture and I can say it's not. I can say that the detainees are not legal combatants and you can disagree. The way the world works is that until some authoritative body gets a charge and rules, everyone is innocent. Rummy as well as Osama.
I doubt that you care about due process. You would rather string up those you disagree with. I'd rather let process take it's course. If there's enough evidence for a court to convict Rummy, or Bush, of condoning torture, fine with me. I don't see the evidence right now.
Innocent until proven guilty...or doesn't that fit in your world view?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I imagine there's a great deal you don't know. Though if it satisfies your anti-Bush cravings you'll convince yourself of just about anything.
Originally posted by SignyM:
In fact, I don't know of a single terrorist act thwarted by aggressive detentions and coercive interrogation. (Oh yeah-Bush lied about that too.) What seems to happen is you get a bunch of low-level rebels, some average street thugs, neighbors who were turned in for the reward, a few innocent farmers etc etc who get kncoked around for no particular reason because these people really don't know anything.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME