I include in that broad category the men that are found to be unlawful combatants.
Yes, they are not “convicted”. But under the rules of war, it does not require a “conviction” to detain a prisoner of war, just to chose an example. So it’s unclear to me why you would suggest that “conviction” is somehow necessary – even if we disregard the “unlawful combatant” designation, we may legitimately imprison a POW without the need for a criminal trial replete with the guarantees provided by the Fitfth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments.
Right?
Well, I certainly would ask everyone in this thread who has advocated torture to read your words.
And civilian prisonners who may have been arrested for civil crimes totally unrelated to any ‘combat’ at all and just happen to be held at a jail that is being manned by US troops?
Two answers:
A person arrested inside the United States for a “civil” crime – by which I assume you mean an ordinary federal or state criminal offense – should be entitled to the full panoply of Constitutional protections.
A person arrested overseas, in an area policed by US armed forces and held in a facility manned by US armed forces, is NOT entitled to the full panoply of Constitutional protections.
Well, this is the one that we’re particularly discussing. So, not ‘terrorism detainees’, but any people who happen to be held in prison for whatever crimes can be acceptably placed on a dog leash. How about non-detained civilians in an occupied country? Is there any legal reason why US soldiers should have different obligations of standards of behaviour towards a civilian on the street then to one who has been arrested on suspicion of burglary, say?
Of course. In many instances where soldiers are patroling the streets the area will be under Martial Law, or more commonly it will be under some form of curfew. I would be more concerned about adhering to the laws of that country rather than ours. For example: In the US you cannot hold someone for more than 48 hours without charging them with a crime. What if country X has a legal ruling (like Britain) that allows for a longer detention time?
Awesome. “Just 9 more months of hugs and flowers and this terrorist is sure to tell me something!”
In a perfect world, I’d much rather use butterfly kisses and rainbows to get information out of terrorists. But 1) these so-called “military experts” you’re speaking of haven’t managed to convince anyone of note, including the militaries and intelligence agencies of any countries around the world, that holding hands and singing is more effective; 2) even if those methods are eventually more effective, the most highly sought-after information is typically time-sensitive, like information on attacks that will be executed soon. So we don’t have 9 months to chat about our feelings before the detainees start opening up; and 3) anyone who says “torture doesn’t work” is selling something. Of course torture works. It’s not 100% effective, but neither is it 0% effective.
The argument you want to make is that torture is barbaric and illegal. The idea that “torture doesn’t work” is just a bunch of malarkey.
Then you ought to be able to provide just oodles of examples where it *has * worked. Where it *has * made people give useful information not readily available otherwise. Things they didn’t say just to make the pain end, irrespective of its factuality.
Or where the people being tortured really were “terrorists”.
If what you just said isn’t “a bunch of malarkey”, that is.
Only to the extent that it represents the same basic claim we make to being civilized, the same morality, that the Constitution puts into practice, however imperfectly.
Do you believe in such a thing?
I’ve got a question. If a suspect is forced to undergo leashing, wearing women’s clothing, forced nakedness, etc etc but are subsequently found innocent, would they be able to bring some sort of legal case against the U.S. Military?
Sure! He can tell it to the Marines.
Are you kidding me? You really think torture has never been effective? That’s an amazing – and utterly ridiculous – position. If you’re not aware that torture has revealed usable information in the past, then you’ve either never looked at the issue or you’re blocking out facts inconsistent with your values.
I’m not privvy to the transcripts of intelligence-gathering organizations around the world and throughout time. Plus, countries don’t usually announce the methods by which they’ve obtained information, especially when that information has been obtained through less-than-desirable methods.
And yet I can still name instances in which torture has worked. For example, here:
And if you believe we’re torturing prisoners in Gitmo, then here:
Not to mention the time that my older brother held me down and hit me until I told him where I’d hidden his gummy bears.
:rolleyes: Yes, they’re all innocent. Right. They just guessed correctly about the locations, names, and activities of other terrorists.
In short, no, you don’t have any examples to prove your assertion, only bluster. Not a surprise coming from you, of course, but still a bit disappointing nonetheless. Interesting reading about the German case, though - do you wonder why nothing more came of it? Of course you don’t. Did you even notice that your so-called cites are indistinguishable from instances of people just saying what their torturers want to hear? Of course you didn’t.
Some remedial reading for you:
“The Torture Myth” by Anne Applebaum
Getting worried yet? You should.
That’s merely the first Google reference under a simple search of “torture doesn’t work”. There’s a helluva lot more, obviously, but to learn from it you’d first have to be willing to accept that the Republican party line might be in error, so there’s probably no point, is there?
“Amazing and utterly ridiculous” are the sort of words used by somebody pounding the table, Counselor. :rolleyes:
Oh, what the hell, Here is a rationalization for it “working”, one which you’re entirely welcome to adopt as your own, should you wish. I give you “Torture’s Dirty Secret: It Works” by Naomi Klein . But *how * does it work?
Are you *proud * to support that policy? Is that really what you want us to stand for in the eyes of the world, the eyes of history, and, if you believe in Him, the eyes of the Lord?
Mind explaining how this is not an insult? I’d like to keep the shots above the belt, please. But if you’re going to dip into insults, then I’d like to know what I’m wading into.
Regardless, I’ve provided exactly what you asked me to provide. And now that I’ve provided it, you dismiss it out of hand. No evidence, no arguments, no discussion. Just a simple declaration that it’s “bluster,” and you continue to believe that contrary evidence doesn’t exist.
That’s not a credible argument.
What in the world makes you think nothing has or will come of it? There have been lots of arrests and convictions of terrorists in Germany, many of which may be related to those 22 arrests I linked. And more than that, trials don’t usually begin in Germany as quickly as they do in the US. They don’t have a “speedy trial” guarantee in their Constitution. So, for example, a terrorist arrested in 2002 may be tried in 2004.
Do you have some evidence that nothing has come of those arrests? If so, I’d love to see it. Cite please?
Well, yes, I suppose the interrogators wanted to hear (for example) details about terrorist plots and the names of co-conspirators. But that doesn’t explain how the subject had access to that information.
Are you suggesting that the torturers already knew the information and just asked the subjects to tell them what they already knew? If so, I’d love to see some evidence to back that up. Cite please?
But that wouldn’t make any sense. If the torturers already know the information, why are they torturing someone to get it? Why haven’t they acted on the information they already know?
First of all, “torture works” is hardly the Republican party line. Most people agree that torture can be effective, regardless of party affiliation.
But here’s where I get stuck. I’d love to believe that torture never works. Honestly, I would. Because if torture never works, we wouldn’t ever feel compelled to use it. I’d much rather that we’re never tempted to use it.
But that just doesn’t jibe with reality. Torture does elicit information. Sometimes that information is bad. But sometimes it’s good.
I don’t know how else to describe my reaction. Surely you’ll agree that at least one or two of the people tortured throughout history had usable information. So what do you think those people said when they were tortured? Are you suggesting that people will say whatever the torturer wants to hear, except when the person being tortured actually knows something?
“Amazing and ridiculous.”
I’m not supporting that policy. I’m just pointing out that torture can be effective. Whether it’s legally or ethically justifiable are two separate arguments. But I already pointed that out when I said:
So let’s keep the strawmen to a minimum, please.
I still would assign the times it works as the lottery effect, indeed some win, but it is still a stupid game to play, and there are other reasons, see the next reply:
The items at hand here are the torturers of the current administration and the information that they are willing to get from worse torturers, the administration is on record as using false torture information to justify going into Iraq, the conclusion I did arrive is that maybe there was a time when one would trust the leaders to be wise to deal with the information obtained by torture, but this is not the time, not ever with this administration:
No, I don’t believe that the Constitution is intended to put our morality into practice. The Constitution is intended to establish a framework for our government’s operation, such that our government will secure for us justice, peace, and domestic calm. That’s what the preamble says: in Order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This argument, relying as it does on what the Constitution’s text says and all, is probably less than persuasive to you.
If a suspect in this country is arrested, confined and forced to shower in communal settings naked, and wear bright orange or even pink garb, and then ultimately brought to trial and found innocent… do you think he can bring some sort of winning legal case against the sheriff that arrested and jailed him?
Answer: generally, no.
No, he couldn’t. But in your “taming” of the acts (i’m guessing in order to point out that under each system, both are legal? If that’s it, it’s a good point) you’ve missed out that under the more strict forced acts there is a definite element of mental harm possible - one of considerably greater magnitude than merely being forced to wear orange overalls or showering naked. And it’s that mental harm that would be the focus of the case, not the legality of the acts in question. One can act perfectly within the law yet still be open to a mental harm suit.
Also, there are other aspects to consider. Imagine the sheriff found (for example) child pornography in the suspect’s home, but committed an illegal search to do so. Imagine that the suspect had been held for a year or so prior to the trial. Imagine that the charges (as in this hypothetical) would in themselves cause a detriment to the suspect’s future life, thanks to the stigma of the charge. I imagine a charge could indeed be brought against the State in this case.
Now, I know it’s legal for suspects held out of the U.S. to be held for however long; that part’s taken out. But there still is the matter of whether or not the suspect is very clearly innocent (as in, extremely poor evidence for their capture), how the evidence was found, the treatment of them whilst in confinement, and the ensuing stigma of being branded a terrorist and it’s effects on the rest of their lives. I think there could be a case there.