I am a better human being than Pres. Bush and Dick Cheney because I oppose torture

[Scylla]

@tomndebb

And Bush said that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,

I think Clinton got a blowjob. What does this have to do with anything?

We do torture. U.S. personnel have inflicted torture on so many people that they have resulted in at least 25 deaths and numerous serious and permanent injuries.

I assume you are referring to the NAACP site. Their evidence does not support this conclusion. What it supports are that their have been homicides with detainees. It supports that some of these detainees have been abused. It suggests that some were tortured and that some of these were tortured at the hands of Americans. IIRC, we have well over 50,000 detainees in various facilities ranging from quite good, to Ad Hoc. We even recently took over a facility where Iraqis had been torturing other Iraqis.

From the fact that there have been instances of abuse, how do you conclude that the administration condones, supports, or ordered them?

You cannot honestly make that assumption.

What is the point of quoting a deliberate lie as a defense of our policies? (Unless you are suggesting that Bush simply has no understanding of what is really going on under his command?.)

The President is the President of the Unites States. You are a moderator on this board. Can you tell me conclusively that nobody in any active thread in Great Debates is currently breaking a rule?

Unless you have read and studied every single post in every single thread in real time, you cannot.

Than, in your own words, am I to conclude that you simply have no understanding of what is going on under your watch?

Do you expect Bush to know what Private Lefkowski in Afghanistan is doing at this exact moment?

This is not a particularly reasonable argument you’ve made unless you are going to argue that omniscience comes with the office of President.

It is hardly a gross mischaracterization. Claiming that we need to keep torture legal even when we will never use it (when we have already used it) is, at the very best, disingenuous.

It is a gross mischaracterization. Bush was never claimed that he wants torture to be legal. You’re being disingenous yourself to suggest otherwise.

Read the text of Cheney’s testimony on the topic; he was pleading.

I did, in an earlier thread and I remarked on this very same mischaracterization there. If Cheney is pleading, he is pleading that McCain’s proposal is innapropriate and unnecessarily restrictive. He is not pleading for permission to torture.

Saying that he is, is as dishonest as saying that someone who is not strictly pro-life just wants to kill babies. This is an important enough topic that we should deal with it without mischaracterizing the opposition’s arguments.

The insistence and dishonesty with which those on the left insist on mischaracterizing their opposition is strong evidence that their engaged in nothing more than a game of political obstructionism founded on nothing of any real substance.

When you have a strong argument, there is no need to mischaracterize the opposistion.

[Henry-Finland]

@SteveG1

Not much, only that everything turned out exactly opposite of what Bush ever told us. And people still believe him.

Naturally I know that, but as I see it, if an US president would have honestly said it, and kept “the course” in that way, he would have been a great president.

Now, the president of USA, Bush Jr, is just playing in the hands of OBL. Sometimes I wonder on whose side he is?

For a small country, living in the arm-pit of a huge bear, the new policy; “Fuck the International Law” has been very negative.
Next time there is something happening to a small country, they just say: “We do as your friend USA does.”

Personally I put very much the blame on Rummy. Bush is just a puppet for him and Dick. Naturally there is also others.

On the other hand, these guys has also proved that a big country can’t win over a small country. If the Iraqi resistance would not act stupidly and be more united, I do not think that any army would stand long against.

Saddam had no weapons for guerilla war and could naturally not school the soldiers and civilians to it.
But in some other small countries this aspect is very well taken care of.

Anyhow, the question is about fighting for our culture, the western culture. With methods as we know are used; torture etc., we will lose.
To divide the western hemisphere just makes the down-hill steeper.
Henry

[clairobscur]

@John Mace

Are you mistakenly thinking of Illegal Combatants? .

Ahem. I was mistakingly thinking of illegal combatants. :smack:

[clairobscur]

@Scylla

I think Clinton got a blowjob. What does this have to do with anything?
.

It has to do that with the topic at hand (or any other topic, actually), that being a confirmed liar, what he says can be safely ignored. One lie about a private matter is one thing, an uninterupted flow of lies on the most important matters for a nation is a completely different issue.

I give more credence to the statement of any random person than to Bush. Actually, given his record, I assume that anything he says is a lie or at the very least a severe distortion of truth until proven otherwise.

A cite from Bush stating “we don’t torture” has roughly as much weight for me than a cite from The Onion.

[John_Mace]

@Scylla

It is a gross mischaracterization. Bush was never claimed that he wants torture to be legal. You’re being disingenous yourself to suggest otherwise.

I did, in an earlier thread and I remarked on this very same mischaracterization there. If Cheney is pleading, he is pleading that McCain’s proposal is innapropriate and unnecessarily restrictive. He is not pleading for permission to torture.

Saying that he is, is as dishonest as saying that someone who is not strictly pro-life just wants to kill babies. This is an important enough topic that we should deal with it without mischaracterizing the opposition’s arguments.

The insistence and dishonesty with which those on the left insist on mischaracterizing their opposition is strong evidence that their engaged in nothing more than a game of political obstructionism founded on nothing of any real substance.

When you have a strong argument, there is no need to mischaracterize the opposistion.

Do you consider water boarding to be torture? I believe that method was used on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed by the CIA. I think most people would call it torture, although Mort Kondrake doesn’t. My understanding is that Bush wanted to be able to use this and other techniques on a few high value detainees, although I don’t know how we could be sure that it would be used only on those few. (Note that my MSNBC cite probably incorrectly describes water boarding. The usbject is not actually dipped in water, but is positioned with his feet above his head with a cloth over his face. Water is poured on the cloth-- it simulates drowning, but does not actually cause drowning if done “properly”.)

[Scylla]

@clairobscur

It has to do that with the topic at hand (or any other topic, actually), that being a confirmed liar, what he says can be safely ignored. One lie about a private matter is one thing, an uninterupted flow of lies on the most important matters for a nation is a completely different issue.

I think it is true that Bush lied when he stated that he knew for a fact that Saddam had WMDs.

I think he thought he had them, and had a lot of conviction on the topic. He did not however, know it for a fact.

This is hardly an uninterrupted flow of lies though. It is one lie.

I give more credence to the statement of any random person than to Bush. Actually, given his record, I assume that anything he says is a lie or at the very least a severe distortion of truth until proven otherwise.

I feel that way about most anti-war Bush bashers. It seems to me that the majority can’t make an honest argument. They must misrepresent their opponents or demonize them or engage in gross hyperbole.

A cite from Bush stating “we don’t torture” has roughly as much weight for me than a cite from The Onion.

That tells me to discount your credibilty since you’ve already preselected your conclusion. Such a viewpoint is damaging to you.

[Scylla]

@John Mace

Do you consider water boarding to be torture?

I would.

I believe that method was used on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed by the CIA. I think most people would call it torture, although Mort Kondrake doesn’t.

I would call it torture.

You may beleive that method was used, but it is an unsubstantiated report. Until and unless it is substantiated I do not see how one can draw a conclusion unless one is simply arbitrarily chooding what to beleive.

My understanding is that Bush wanted to be able to use this and other techniques on a few high value detainees, although I don’t know how we could be sure that it would be used only on those few.

I think your understanding is incorrect. Do you have a quote where he promotes or defends this practice? If not, on what are you basing this understanding?

(Note that my MSNBC cite probably incorrectly describes water boarding. The usbject is not actually dipped in water, but is positioned with his feet above his head with a cloth over his face. Water is poured on the cloth-- it simulates drowning, but does not actually cause drowning if done “properly”.)

Yes, thank you for pointing out that innacuracy.

[John_Mace]

@Scylla

You may beleive that method was used, but it is an unsubstantiated report. Until and unless it is substantiated I do not see how one can draw a conclusion unless one is simply arbitrarily chooding what to beleive.

What would you consider a substantiated report? Is this also an unsubstantiated report?

ABC News: CIA’s Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described

Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda’s toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

@Scylla

I think your understanding is incorrect. Do you have a quote where he promotes or defends this practice? If not, on what are you basing this understanding?

I’m basing my understanding on watching the news. If you don’t accept it, fine. I’m not going to dig up cites because it’s not central to my argument about the use of water boarding, per above.

[tomndebb]

@Scylla

I think Clinton got a blowjob. What does this have to do with anything?

You offered the fact that Bush declared that we do not torture as some sort of defense of the administrtion’s position. A list of several lies that Bush has declared in the past provides a background against which I choose to not believe this lie, either.

As to the Cheney pleading or not, you can find some other verb if it makes you happy, but his testimony was dishonest and corrupt and it looked like pleading to me. The notion that we are somehow tying the hands of the CIA by putting torture off limits is silly. The opposition already knows we are using torture, so they are going to “prepare” for that There is no real “preparation” against psych efforts to gain information and putting torture out of bounds does nothing to make the interrogated less willing to talk, (particularly when they are already preparing to be tortured since they know we have been lying about it.) It is not as though Ali says to himself, “This is all rough, but they have been forbidden to put me on the rack, so I will keep my mouth shut.”

From the fact that there have been instances of abuse, how do you conclude that the administration condones, supports, or ordered them?

You cannot honestly make that assumption.

From the fact thaty we have testimony and records leading directly to Rumsfeld in the form of “requests” to use non-standard interrogation techniques, from the rtestimony of experts on torture that the methods used at abu Ghraib were not widely known and would not have been invented by “undisciplined” soldiers just abusing prisoners for fun, from the memoes of Gonzales that simply declared that people we captured had no rights (along with Powell’s blistering rebuttal that the administration basically ignored), from the testimony of intelligence operatives from Afghanistan who commented on the fact that the torture occurring in Iraq was prohibited by their training, and by the fact that the top administration officials approved “rendering” captives to governments who are known to use torture (thus pretending that because the torture was not inflicted by a U.S. citizen, (that we know–yet), it was somehow not the U.S. that was causing the torture to be used.

Now, I suppose that you can argue that Bush was too stupid or ignorant to be aware of these things, but they are happening (because I do not see that they have stopped) under his command and I see him defending it and opposing laws to stop it rather than putting a stop to it, himself–which would be the action I would expect of a person who only discovered that something terrible had been done in his name.

[Scylla]

@tomndebb

You offered the fact that Bush declared that we do not torture as some sort of defense of the administrtion’s position. A list of several lies that Bush has declared in the past provides a background against which I choose to not believe this lie, either.

No. I did not. I offered that as a refutation of the statement that Bush is pleading for permission to torture. He is not. He is saying we don’t torture. He is saying he is against it.

You’re beleiving or not believing it is a different topic.

You made the claim that he is arguing for torture. He is not.

As to the Cheney pleading or not, you can find some other verb if it makes you happy, but his testimony was dishonest and corrupt and it looked like pleading to me. The notion that we are somehow tying the hands of the CIA by putting torture off limits is silly.

You throw “dishonest” and “corrupt” around pretty easily. As for whether or not it is silly, let’s discuss it.

Earlier I gave reasons why it was not. We would be showing the enemy the play book we use. Secondly, I stated that there might be valid interrogation techniques that would not be permitted under the proposal. I’ll give you a couple off the top of my head: Drugs. The use of truth serum or mind-altering drugs to extract information is not something I would consider torture, nor do I think terrorists enjoy the rights of combatants under the Geneva convention or what they would have if they were citizens. Second would be drama. I think you could compellingly stage psychological dramas and mindfucks that could give useful information. The extent of what you are allowed to do in this area is overly curtailed in my opinion under McCain’s proposal.

The opposition already knows we are using torture, so they are going to “prepare” for that There is no real “preparation” against psych efforts to gain information

Untrue. You should read The SAS Mental Endurance Handbook and particularly the doctrine and training of JSIU (Joint Services Interrogation Unit) which is dedicated to training and preparing people how to overcome extreme interrogation be it mental or physical. Anyway, there’s a whole science to it, and the idea that there is no real “preparation” against interrogation is patently false.

and putting torture out of bounds does nothing to make the interrogated less willing to talk, (particularly when they are already preparing to be tortured since they know we have been lying about it.) It is not as though Ali says to himself, “This is all rough, but they have been forbidden to put me on the rack, so I will keep my mouth shut.”

Ummm, no. You need to think about this. If they have our playbook for interrogation and we follow that playbook, than they know what to expect. The more we follow the playbook the more confident they become that they know what it is happening. The more confident they are, the better equipped they are to resist.

If you and I are playing chess, or any other sport or game, and you have my playbook for that sport or game, and I follow that playbook, you have an extreme an advantage. I cannot imagine by what logic you would deny this very simple fact.

From the fact thaty we have testimony and records leading directly to Rumsfeld in the form of “requests” to use non-standard interrogation techniques, from the rtestimony of experts on torture that the methods used at abu Ghraib were not widely known and would not have been invented by “undisciplined” soldiers just abusing prisoners for fun,

I have no categorical objection to a “non-standard” interrogation technique. Tell me the technique and I’ll judge it, but “non-standard” does not tell me enough to judge it’s efficacy or appropriateness.

As for Abu Graib, I think what they did was disgusting and degrading to the armed services. Lindsey et al however do not fit with the label of trained and motivated interrogators. Incompetant and pathetically stupid is more like it. Unfortunately, as studies have shown prison guards sometimes let the power go to their head and degrade their captors. I see gross negligence and stupidity, but if you want to paint Lindsey as a master interrogator go for it.

from the memoes of Gonzales that simply declared that people we captured had no rights

I believe this is a mischaracterization. As I recall it, Gonzales argued that some detainees did not enjoy protection under the Geneva convention. He didn’t “simply declare that they have no rights.”

Perhaps though I am mistaken. If he wrote such a thing, surely you can quote and link it, can’t you?

from the testimony of intelligence operatives from Afghanistan who commented on the fact that the torture occurring in Iraq was prohibited by their training, and by the fact that the top administration officials approved “rendering” captives to governments who are known to use torture (thus pretending that because the torture was not inflicted by a U.S. citizen, (that we know–yet), it was somehow not the U.S. that was causing the torture to be used.

Yes, I am troubled by both those issues. I’ve read the stories, but I’m not sure how much, if any, I beleive, in the current media environment.

Now, I suppose that you can argue that Bush was too stupid or ignorant to be aware of these things, but they are happening (because I do not see that they have stopped) under his command and I see him defending it and opposing laws to stop it rather than putting a stop to it, himself–which would be the action I would expect of a person who only discovered that something terrible had been done in his name.

No. I would argue that the left is grossly exagerrating and mischaracterizing the true nature of what is occuring purely for political value. You hold the exceptions and the failures and the mistakes as if they were the rule. You draw from a large sample so such mischaracterization is feasible.

[Scylla]

@John Mace

What would you consider a substantiated report? Is this also an unsubstantiated report?

Yes. That is an unsubstantiated report. I’m not sure why you’re asking that question since it appears that this report derives from you previous cite, or vice-versa. Unnamed sources = unsubstantiated, if that’s all there is. Note that the one substantiated source says:

Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and a deputy director of the State Department’s office of counterterrorism, recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust … than to extract quick confessions through tactics such as those used by the Nazis and the Soviets.”

Which seems to suggest that the unnamed sources have their heads of their collective asses.

I’m basing my understanding on watching the news. If you don’t accept it, fine. I’m not going to dig up cites because it’s not central to my argument about the use of water boarding, per above.

Well, your understanding doesn’t seem particularly rigorous.

[SteveG1]

@Henry-Finland

Anyhow, the question is about fighting for our culture, the western culture. With methods as we know are used; torture etc., we will lose.
To divide the western hemisphere just makes the down-hill steeper.
Henry

If we are fighting to preserve our culture, then we have to ask why are we abandoning the very things we claim to be fighting for. It makes us a bunch of hypocrites and liars. As McCain said, the torture “debate” says more about us than it does about them.

[John_Mace]

@Scylla

Yes. That is an unsubstantiated report. I’m not sure why you’re asking that question since it appears that this report derives from you previous cite, or vice-versa. Unnamed sources = unsubstantiated, if that’s all there is.

Can you substantiate your definition of “unsubstantiated”? I’ve always understood it to mean “not proven true” or “not validated by another source”.

Note that the one substantiated source says:

Which seems to suggest that the unnamed sources have their heads of their collective asses.

What I note is that he is using the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.

Well, your understanding doesn’t seem particularly rigorous.

My understanding is plenty rigorous. I’m just not interested in finding cites because, as I said, it’s not central to my argument.

[Scylla]

@John Mace

Can you substantiate your definition of “unsubstantiated”? I’ve always understood it to mean “not proven true” or “not validated by another source”.

Seeing as the information comes from an unnamed source(s) it seems to fit your definition.

My understanding is plenty rigorous. I’m just not interested in finding cites because, as I said, it’s not central to my argument.

Which would also fit your definition of unsubstantiated.

[SteveG1]

@John Mace

I’m basing my understanding on watching the news. If you don’t accept it, fine. I’m not going to dig up cites because it’s not central to my argument about the use of water boarding, per above.

Welcome to the club, John. It’s maddening isn’t it.

@tomndebb

You offered the fact that Bush declared that we do not torture as some sort of defense of the administrtion’s position. A list of several lies that Bush has declared in the past provides a background against which I choose to not believe this lie, either.

Same here. I refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt. Ever. He has blown all his “capital”.

@tomndebb

As to the Cheney pleading or not, you can find some other verb if it makes you happy, but his testimony was dishonest and corrupt and it looked like pleading to me. The notion that we are somehow tying the hands of the CIA by putting torture off limits is silly.

If we are not torturing, then absolutely and completely forbidding it will not tie anyone’s hads, because it isn’t happening. So let’s outlaw it completely and remove the dilemma. After all we dont torture anyway. So what’s Cheney’s problem?

@Yahoo News

Vice President Dick Cheney made an unusual personal appeal to Republican senators this week to allow CIA exemptions to a proposed ban on the torture of terror suspects in U.S. custody, according to participants in a closed-door session. Cheney told his audience the United States doesn’t engage in torture, these participants added, even though he said the administration needed an exemption from any legislation banning “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment in case the president decided one was necessary to prevent a terrorist attack. … The vice president made his appeal at a time Congress is struggling with the torture issue in light of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and allegations of mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The United States houses about 500 detainees at the naval base there, many of them captured in Afghanistan. … Cheney’s appeal came two days before a former senior State Department official claimed in an interview with National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition” that he had traced paperwork back to Cheney’s office that he believes led to U.S. troops abusing prisoners in Iraq.
“It was clear to me there that there was a visible audit trail from the vice president’s office through the secretary of defense down to the commanders in the field,” Lawrence Wilkerson, a former colonel who was Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff during President Bush’s first term, said Thursday.
Wilkerson said the view of Cheney’s office was put in “carefully couched” terms but that to a soldier in the field it meant sometimes using interrogation techniques that “were not in accordance with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and the law of war.” He said he no longer has access to the paperwork.

But why do we need this exemption, if we don’t do it?

@Scylla

No. I would argue that the left is grossly exagerrating and mischaracterizing the true nature of what is occuring purely for political value.

This was a poor and false argument last time you tried to use it too. Is this former colonel Wilerson one of your bleeding heart lefty liberals too?

@Fishback in a letter to McCain

Despite my efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane treatment of detainees. I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats,** beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment**. I and troops under my command witnessed some of these abuses in both Afghanistan and Iraq. … Take a major step in that direction; eliminate the confusion. My approach for clarification provides clear evidence that confusion over standards was a major contributor to the prisoner abuse. We owe our soldiers better than this. Give them a clear standard that is in accordance with the bedrock principles of our nation. Some do not see the need for this work. Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as Al Qaeda’s, we should not be concerned. When did Al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? We are America, and our actions should be held to a higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. ---- Capt. Ian Fishback

Fishback saw abuse and tried to get clarification - he got none. I suppose he is just another lefty too. How about mcCain? Another lefty?

@Col Karpinski

Wednesday, October 26th, 2005
Col. Janis Karpinski, the Former Head of Abu Ghraib, Admits She Broke the Geneva Conventions But Says the Blame “Goes All the Way to The Top”
Karpinski, the highest-ranking officer demoted in connection with the torture scandal, speaks out about what happened at the Abu Ghraib prison. She discusses: How the military hid “ghost detainees” from the International Red Cross in violation of international law;
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller calling for the Gitmoization of Abu Ghraib and for prisoners to be “treated like dogs”; Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s secret memos on interrogation policies that hung on the prison’s walls;
The military’s use of private (and possibly Israeli) interrogators;
Her dealings with the International Red Cross;
Why she feels, as a female general, she has been scapegoated for a scandal that has left the military and political leadership unscathed; and Calls for Donald Rumsfeld, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, Alberto Gonzalez and Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller to be held accountable for what happened. … Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union has released new documents this week that indicate at least 21 detainees have been murdered at U.S. facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ACLU came to the conclusion after obtaining reams of released Pentagon documents. According to the group, the documents show that detainees were hooded, gagged, strangled, beaten with blunt objects, subjected to sleep deprivation and to hot and cold environmental conditions.
… In April 2004, a secret Pentagon report concluded that U.S. soldiers had committed "egregious acts and grave breaches of international law” at Abu Ghraib. Since the photos first appeared, no senior Bush administration officials have been reprimanded for what happened at Abu Ghraib. Seven soldiers have been convicted for their role in the detainee abuse. Last month Lynndie England was sentenced to three years in prison. In January, Specialist Charles Graner was sentenced to 10 years. The highest ranking military officer reprimanded was Brigadier General Janis Karpinski who was commanding officer at the prison. She was demoted to colonel in May.

Note: In an interview that was on radio and television, Karpinski talked about that memo that was written and signed by Rumsfeld.

@CBS News

Dec. 11, 2005
Indeed, there is no point in arguing about whether U.S. policy condones cruel, degrading or torturous treatment of prisoners. Practices authorized by Rumsfeld on a small scale in Afghanistan have now metastasized into a worldwide network of prisons, detention centers and surrogates ranging from private contractors to authoritarian foreign governments. What Rice defended to European critics — and what has Cheney at loggerheads with John McCain — is not merely a desire to take the gloves off in the occasional back room in Bagram or Baghdad, as the Administration’s apologists insist. Rather, it is a wide-ranging conspiracy to facilitate torture, in which many sectors of American society are now implicated. … The Administration’s adherence to systematic torture and extralegal imprisonment not only accelerates the race to the bottom in human rights; it is even tying anti-terrorism policy in knots. Take the case of José Padilla, the U.S. citizen imprisoned as an enemy combatant for his supposed participation in a “dirty bomb” plot. In November the Administration finally indicted Padilla on charges unrelated to any dirty bomb. Why? At least in part because Padilla was arrested on the basis of information extracted from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, whose interrogation included waterboarding. The case is a colossal failure in terms both moral and pragmatic: Either Padilla was never part of a bomb plot, in which case Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s original statement demonstrates the unreliability of confessions obtained under torture, or effective anti-terrorism prosecution was undermined by reliance on illegal methods. … The question is not whether the United States instigates torture but how to put this evil genie back in the bottle. The first step is to confront the culture of denial. Where, for instance, are Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah? It has now been two years since those al Qaeda operatives were “disappeared” into the netherworld of CIA “black sites.”

@CBS News 60 Minutes

G.I. Attacked During Training
(CBS) Pictures from Abu Ghraib prison tell a story that has shocked the world.

There are no pictures of what happened in the prison camp at Guantanamo last year. But Correspondent Bob Simon has a shocking story – and it’s not about what Americans did to foreign detainees. It’s about what Americans did to a fellow American soldier, Sean Baker. Baker, a National Guardsman, was working last year as a military policeman in the Guantanamo Bay prison when other MPs injured him during a training drill. It was a drill during which Baker was only obeying orders.
“I was assaulted by these individuals,” says Baker. “Pure and simple.”
It’s all the more bizarre because Baker was considered a model soldier and he had served as an MP in Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War. … Baker started having a seizure that morning and was whisked to the Naval Hospital at Guantanamo. “[He looked like] he’d had the crap beat out of him. He had a concussion. I mean, it was textbook,” says Riley. “[His face} was blank. You know, a dead stare, like he was seeing you, but really looking through you.” … Baker was finally taken off Guantanamo and sent to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where he was put in a psychiatric ward. His diagnosis: traumatic brain injury. After 47 days, he was ordered to report to a medical hold unit at Fort Dix, N.J. But the seizures continued. … Baker was left to fight the Pentagon for a disability check, and he says it took four months to get his first check. Meantime, he says drew unemployment insurance, about half of what he was accustomed to making, to get by.
“These are our American veterans,” says England. “Sean Baker was one that wasn’t taken care of. In my own personal opinion, Sean Baker wasn’t taken care of." … "He’ll not get a dime from what happened to him through the court system because the doors to the federal courthouse as to Sean Baker are closed,” says Simpson, who adds that no one has paid a price for what happened to Baker that night. “He’s been destined to a life of walking in a minefield of unexploded seizures. He doesn’t know when they’re gonna come. And he doesn’t know when they are gonna bring him to his knees.”

So Scylla, tell us all again that none of this ever happened, and how it was all invented by the left. You’ve done it repeatedly in numeous threads and I for one am sick and tired of seeing it.

[John_Mace]

@Scylla

Seeing as the information comes from an unnamed source(s) it seems to fit your definition.

Nope.

Which would also fit your definition of unsubstantiated.

Cute. :rolleyes:

[Scylla]

@SteveG1

If we are not torturing, then absolutely and completely forbidding it will not tie anyone’s hads, because it isn’t happening. So let’s outlaw it completely and remove the dilemma. After all we dont torture anyway. So what’s Cheney’s problem?

But why do we need this exemption, if we don’t do it?

Already explained this in detail.

So Scylla, tell us all again that none of this ever happened, and how it was all invented by the left. You’ve done it repeatedly in numeous threads and I for one am sick and tired of seeing it.

Well, you’re free not to read me. You’re free to go play Quake, or you’re free to take a flying fuck at a rolling donut, for all I care. If you don’t like it, don’t read. I would prefer you didn’t.

[Lemur866]

Heh.

Basically, anyone captured by the military for any reason has to be treated as a POW unless there is some determination that they are not POWs.

A tribunal can determine if someone captured as a POW is a noncombatant, those people should be repatriated. But if you’re a farmer in the wrong place, how are you going to prove it? Until you can prove it, you’re held as a POW.

A tribunal can determine if someone captured as a POW is guilty of war crimes, or other crimes, or that they were fighters who don’t deserve Geneva Convention protection. However, the “immediate invasion” clause above would seem to apply even to Al Queda fighters, at least for shooting back at US soldiers during the invasion. In any case, you’d have to PROVE that a particular prisoner violated the Geneva Convention, and at this late date it’s probably impossible to do for most of these guys. And of course, just because someone is POW doesn’t mean they can’t be tried for other crimes they commited back in Afghanistan, or other crimes…just not for shooting back at US soldiers. In any case, to convict someone of a crime you actually have to try them, until then they are POWs.

Anyone who can’t be released as a noncombatant or charged with crimes CAN be held indefinately, as a POW enemy combatant, until hostilities are over. It doesn’t require a declaration of war to hold someone as a POW, of course, nor does it require an arrest warrant for soldiers to take suspected enemy soldiers prisoner.

In actual fact, the Bush administration hasn’t clarified the status of most of the Gitmo prisoners, however they have claimed that until that status is clarified then everyone will be treated as POWs. This is how it should be handled, however, it seems that there are some differences between these claims and how prisoners were actually treated. But treating the captives as POWs until their status is clarified is a perfectly defensible practice if we actually were to do that.

Of course, all these POWs will have to be released without someday, or handed over to the Afghan government, but when? Some of these guys are terrorists who could be charged with crimes if only we could prove it, but to do that you have to have some evidence. So we hold them as POWs because we don’t want to let them go but can’t prove they did anything in particular, we just know they are likely to cause trouble if we let them go.

But in any case, none of these people, noncombatants, enemy combatants, or criminals can be tortured. I’m going to to out on a limb and agree with Tamerlane. No torture, period. If there’s a ticking nuclear bomb and you really really need to torture someone, go ahead if you need to, but we’re not going to give you permission in advance. If the information you gain from torturing that terrorist isn’t important enough for the interrogator to risk going to jail over, it isn’t worth torturing the terrorist. What, the torture is justified because you’re going to save a million innocent people, but you won’t do it because you don’t have written permission and a get out of jail free card afterward? Guess those million innocent people aren’t so important after all, huh?

Yeah, I can imagine hypothetical cases where torture is justified. But those cases are so rare that there’s no need to spell out what those cases are. I can also imagine cases where driving drunk is justified, that doesn’t mean we need to list all the cases and make them part of the legal code. If you really are justified in driving drunk or torturing someone, go ahead if you’re completely sure you’re justified, just know that your actions will be reviewed by 12 jurors later. If you can’t hold up your head high during your trial and accept whatever verdict the jury hands down with a smile on your face, then you shouldn’t be torturing anyone.

[John_Mace]

@Lemur866

Heh.

Basically, anyone captured by the military for any reason has to be treated as a POW unless there is some determination that they are not POWs.

A tribunal can determine if someone captured as a POW is a noncombatant, those people should be repatriated. But if you’re a farmer in the wrong place, how are you going to prove it? Until you can prove it, you’re held as a POW.

Just to be clear, you don’t have to go thru a tribunal unless there is doubt. See my quotes from the GC above. IOW, if we capture ObL, and verify that he’s actually Osama, we don’t need a tribunal to determine he’s an illegal combatant.

In actual fact, the Bush administration hasn’t clarified the status of most of the Gitmo prisoners, however they have claimed that until that status is clarified then everyone will be treated as POWs.

No. Bush has said they will be treated humanely but he never said they will be treated as POWs. I’ll stand corrected if you can produce a cite to the contrary.

I’m going to to out on a limb and agree with Tamerlane. No torture, period. If there’s a ticking nuclear bomb and you really really need to torture someone, go ahead if you need to, but we’re not going to give you permission in advance. If the information you gain from torturing that terrorist isn’t important enough for the interrogator to risk going to jail over, it isn’t worth torturing the terrorist. What, the torture is justified because you’re going to save a million innocent people, but you won’t do it because you don’t have written permission and a get out of jail free card afterward? Guess those million innocent people aren’t so important after all, huh?

Yeah, I can imagine hypothetical cases where torture is justified. But those cases are so rare that there’s no need to spell out what those cases are. I can also imagine cases where driving drunk is justified, that doesn’t mean we need to list all the cases and make them part of the legal code. If you really are justified in driving drunk or torturing someone, go ahead if you’re completely sure you’re justified, just know that your actions will be reviewed by 12 jurors later. If you can’t hold up your head high during your trial and accept whatever verdict the jury hands down with a smile on your face, then you shouldn’t be torturing anyone.

There was a snippet in the paper about this today, wrt to McCain’s clarification. He now says that it would be OK to water board someone in the “ticking time bomb” scenario. That’s because, in that particular instance, the act would not “shock the conscience”. I’ll dig up the link if you’re interested, but it was such a short snippet that I couldn’t quote it here w/o quoting the whole thing. Since that would violate the board rules, I didn’t bother to find it on-line.

[Lemur866]

@John Mace

Just to be clear, you don’t have to go thru a tribunal unless there is doubt. See my quotes from the GC above. IOW, if we capture ObL, and verify that he’s actually Osama, we don’t need a tribunal to determine he’s an illegal combatant.

I agree with this, if you can positively ID a prisoner as a wanted criminal you can turn him over to the appropriate authorities. The trouble is that most of the prisoners at Gitmo aren’t internationally wanted terrorists, but low level guys who might not have committed any crimes you can prove except being members of Al Qaida or the Taliban. Why exactly these particular guys were sent to Gitmo while most of the other Taliban fighters weren’t isn’t clear.

No. Bush has said they will be treated humanely but he never said they will be treated as POWs. I’ll stand corrected if you can produce a cite to the contrary.

Hmmm, I was going from memory. I remember Rumsfeld saying this about a year ago. If I recall correctly he didn’t come out and say they’d be treated as POWs, he claimed they weren’t POWs, just that their treatment would be the same as if they were POWs, or some such. The difference between treating someone as a POW and treating them the same as if they were POWs was lost on me.

I suppose the point was that the administration claimed that these guys weren’t enemy soldiers but criminal terrorists. The trouble with this contention is that if they are criminal terrorists you’d have to charge them with something.

The clear policy would be to hold all of them as POWs and charge whichever ones you can with specific crimes but keep the rest of them indefinately as POWs. Holding them as POWs doesn’t preclude charging guilty ones with crimes later if you can prove it. I suppose the idea is that no one fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan was a legal combatant. But only a very few of those ended up at Gitmo, most of them are now free walking around in Afghanistan, what exactly is the difference between those guys and the guys at Gitmo?