On Torture

[Homer_Rice]

A few links for folks to peruse before the bulletheads show up with their pro-torture links.

[url="http://www.slate.com/id/2150495/nav/tap1/"]The Blind Leading the Willing: A compromise between those who don't care and those who don't want to know.[/url]

[url="http://www.slate.com/id/2150502/nav/tap1/"]What Is Torture?: An interactive primer on American interrogation.[/url]

[url="http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_10_09/review.html"]He Wrote the Book on Torture[/url]

[Homer_Rice]

[url="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c109VlgYKG"]H.R. 6166 as passed by House[/url]

[url="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/alsedact.htm"]Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, along with opposing Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions[/url]

[|Bunghole|]

I suppose the best course of action would be to charge these people with something at some kind of a trial, no? I mean, we DO have evidence against them, RIGHT?
Are we simply being arbitrary when we scoop up these guys, or do we go by hearsay and bogus information?
I am all for lawful interrogation, especially of high-value operatives within terrorist networks that we are fortunate enough to capture. Shit, we interrogate American citizens suspected of crimes every day.
I guess the looseness that has enshrouded what "the rules" are regarding where interrogation crosses the line into torture is what's coming into play.
The problem is, we can create as many rules governing what is and isn't responsible, and EFFECTIVE, means of interrogation all we want, but as long as people are detained in secret facilities or places like Guantanamo where there is little to no oversight, then all the rules go out the window.
Everything I have read, heard or seen on this issue keeps coming back to one thing: torture (and by this I mean unlawful, cruel, inhumane forms of interrogation) RARELY produces genuine information of any value.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[center][img]http://www.topplebush.com/humor/sanders_Bushtorture-ban.jpg[/img][/center]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[center][img]http://www.adamzyglis.com/images/cartoon234.jpg[/img][/center]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[center][img]http://seedsofdoubt.com/daoud/images/torture-steal.jpg[/img][/center]

[Lawman]

[quote]The problem is, we can create as many rules governing what is and isn't responsible, and EFFECTIVE, means of interrogation all we want, but as long as people are detained in secret facilities or [u]places like Guantanamo where there is little to no oversight,[/u] then all the rules go out the window.[/quote]

Bung,

Without going into elaborate detail (I am not permitted), this statement is untrue.

What I can speak of is what Detainees recieved outside of interogations (in their cells or in the yards);

1) They receive three meals and we go as far as ensuring the meals are prepared in accordance with Islamic
Law (Halal).

2) They recieve Korans upon request.

3) Prayer hours and observance of Islamic religous practices are respected.

4) They are provided clean clothing and linen when required.

5) Medical treatment (including Specialist) is better than what the average American recieves in the States.

6) They no longer wear orange jumpsuits; this was done in the early stages of the Camp (X-ray, now closed).

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Lawman' post='353224' date='Sep 28 2006, 08:40 AM']Bung,

Without going into elaborate detail (I am not permitted), this statement is untrue.

What I can speak of is what Detainees recieved outside of interogations (in their cells or in the yards);

1) They receive three meals and we go as far as ensuring the meals are prepared in accordance with Islamic
Law (Halal).

2) They recieve Korans upon request.

3) Prayer hours and observance of Islamic religous practices are respected.

4) They are provided clean clothing and linen when required.

5) Medical treatment (including Specialist) is better than what the average American recieves in the States.

6) They no longer wear orange jumpsuits; this was done in the early stages of the Camp (X-ray, now closed).[/quote]
I am sure that they are well-provided for, but that doesn't mean interrogation abuses don't occur behind closed doors.
I just wish we (Americans) knew a little about whom was there and why. Just calling them all "bad people" or "terrorists" just leaves way too much to the imagination.

[Homer_Rice]

[url="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/imagine-giving-donald-rumsfeld.html"]It's the domestic implications[/url] of this which [url="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ackerman28sep28,0,619852.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail"]ought to bother people, too.[/url]

[Khatmandude]

[quote name='Lawman' post='353224' date='Sep 28 2006, 12:10 PM']Bung,

Without going into elaborate detail (I am not permitted), this statement is untrue.

What I can speak of is what Detainees recieved outside of interogations (in their cells or in the yards);

1) They receive three meals and we go as far as ensuring the meals are prepared in accordance with Islamic
Law (Halal).

2) They recieve Korans upon request.

3) Prayer hours and observance of Islamic religous practices are respected.

4) They are provided clean clothing and linen when required.

5) Medical treatment (including Specialist) is better than what the average American recieves in the States.

6) They no longer wear orange jumpsuits; this was done in the early stages of the Camp (X-ray, now closed).[/quote]


Well shit, sign me up.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='353324' date='Sep 28 2006, 12:58 PM'][url="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/imagine-giving-donald-rumsfeld.html"]It's the domestic implications[/url] of this which [url="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ackerman28sep28,0,619852.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail"]ought to bother people, too.[/url][/quote]

why are you so stupid to keep falling for these fear tactics?

from your first article posted: [i]But the really breathtaking subsection is subsection (ii), which would provide that UEC is defined to include any person "who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."

Read literally, this means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to "hostilities" at all.[/i]

problem is, i read the document literally, and i don't come to their conclussion... the president or secretary of defense can form a tribunal to see whether or not they should be considered an enemy combatant or not... the main problem i do see, which i am sure you are trying to point out, is that american citizens can supposidly be rounded up and considered an enemy combatant, when that should be a designation for only foreign citizens... i agree w/ this point of view, so i decided to check it out, b/c this would be an extremely slippery slope... heres what i found... [url="http://balkin.blogspot.com/Military.commissions.bill.925.pdf"]goto page 93 of 96.[/url]



[i]‘‘(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.[/i]

for your information, an "alien" is described as (page 4, same doc): [i]‘‘(3) ALIEN.—The term ‘alien’ means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.[/i]

so not only does the consitution shield americans from this, but so does the geneva convention, and even this bill spells it out... it sounds like a new round of "fear mongering" is starting up... "donald rumsfeld can detain you for donating to the ACLU!!!! we're all gonna die!!!!!!!!!!!"

[Lawman]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='353229' date='Sep 28 2006, 10:47 AM']I am sure that they are well-provided for, but that doesn't mean interrogation abuses don't occur behind closed doors.[/quote]

Bung,

Interrogations do happen behind closed doors. Interrogation and tortrure are not one in the same.

Torture is not a succesful interrogation technique. How do I know?

I have been interrogated, in more than a half-dozen ways. What I endured, I would not consider to be torture. Yet I am an Initiated Chief

[quote]I just wish we (Americans) knew a little about whom was there and why. Just calling them all "bad people" or "terrorists" just leaves way too much to the imagination.[/quote]

Coming soon

[Guest ONYX]

I think the irony here,
is that for an administration that prides itself on Christian values, it has the audacity
to support such policy.

Especially since "their" Lord and Saviour was also a victim of brutal torture.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='353375' date='Sep 28 2006, 02:01 PM']why are you so stupid to keep falling for these fear tactics?

from your first article posted: [i]But the really breathtaking subsection is subsection (ii), which would provide that UEC is defined to include any person "who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."

Read literally, this means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to "hostilities" at all.[/i]

problem is, i read the document literally, and i don't come to their conclussion... the president or secretary of defense can form a tribunal to see whether or not they should be considered an enemy combatant or not... the main problem i do see, which i am sure you are trying to point out, is that american citizens can supposidly be rounded up and considered an enemy combatant, when that should be a designation for only foreign citizens... i agree w/ this point of view, so i decided to check it out, b/c this would be an extremely slippery slope... heres what i found... [url="http://balkin.blogspot.com/Military.commissions.bill.925.pdf"]goto page 93 of 96.[/url]
[i]‘‘(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.[/i]

for your information, an "alien" is described as (page 4, same doc): [i]‘‘(3) ALIEN.—The term ‘alien’ means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.[/i]

so not only does the consitution shield americans from this, but so does the geneva convention, and even this bill spells it out... it sounds like a new round of "fear mongering" is starting up... "donald rumsfeld can detain you for donating to the ACLU!!!! we're all gonna die!!!!!!!!!!!"[/quote]

My elaborate response consists of two words: Jose Padilla.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='353081' date='Sep 28 2006, 09:00 AM']I suppose the best course of action would be to charge these people with something at some kind of a trial, no? I mean, we DO have evidence against them, RIGHT?
Are we simply being arbitrary when we scoop up these guys, or do we go by hearsay and bogus information?
I am all for lawful interrogation, especially of high-value operatives within terrorist networks that we are fortunate enough to capture. Shit, we interrogate American citizens suspected of crimes every day.
I guess the looseness that has enshrouded what "the rules" are regarding where interrogation crosses the line into torture is what's coming into play.
The problem is, we can create as many rules governing what is and isn't responsible, and EFFECTIVE, means of interrogation all we want, but as long as people are detained in secret facilities or places like Guantanamo where there is little to no oversight, then all the rules go out the window.
Everything I have read, heard or seen on this issue keeps coming back to one thing: torture (and by this I mean unlawful, cruel, inhumane forms of interrogation) RARELY produces genuine information of any value.[/quote]


I'll be damned.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Lawman' post='353423' date='Sep 28 2006, 03:10 PM']Bung,

Interrogations do happen behind closed doors. Interrogation and tortrure are not one in the same.

Torture is not a succesful interrogation technique. How do I know?

I have been interrogated, in more than a half-dozen ways. What I endured, I would not consider to be torture. Yet I am an Initiated Chief
Coming soon [/quote]


And yet torture is used. Torture is used because torture may not be a succesful interrogation technique but it is effective for terrorization and for extracting politically useful statements.

[Homer_Rice]

Congratulations. With Senate passage of the bill, you now live in a nation which sanctions torture. What's next? Some skull-cracking and our very own homegrown version of the SA?

Mmm. Those of you who applaud this legislation, ought to remember, notwithstanding your brown-shirted befuddlement, the Night of the Long Knives.

"Ask not for whom the Knife comes, eventually, it comes for you."

I expect I'll be dead before then.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

I very often wonder what form the American Night of the Long Knives will take.

[|Bunghole|]

Look guys, I can think for myself, and to me, the only real issue is "what are the rules", "who's doing the interrogating" and "is there oversight on our interrogations?".
I am not against torture per se, as the defintion of what is and isn't torture could (and does) fill field manuals.
What I want is some proof. I believe it is there and just hasn't been fully presented. I could be wrong. If I am, I want to be proven so by trials, not indefinite confinement.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='353778' date='Sep 28 2006, 08:17 PM']I'll be damned.[/quote]
C'mon, ya had to know I was at best bi-dimensional.

[Lawman]

[quote]Look guys, I can think for myself, and to me, the only real issue is "what are the rules", "who's doing the interrogating" and "is there oversight on our interrogations?".[/quote]

Bung,

You present valid points that needs to be presented to the American public in a comprehensive manner.
but, within the realm of politics, coupled with atmosphere of confusion created by the MSM, I serious doubt this to happen anytime soon.

[quote]I am not against torture per se, as the defintion of what is and isn't torture could (and does) fill field manuals.[/quote]

Prior to the revised versions, guidelines and instructions I have seen were available as late as 1998, therefore whatever happened at Abuh-Graib should not of happened and the individuals involved are receiving their just punishment.

[quote]What I want is some proof. I believe it is there and just hasn't been fully presented. I could be wrong. If I am, I want to be proven so by trials, not indefinite confinement.[/quote]

This is what I was refering to as coming soon; some have stated on here that this last Bill passage will allow for Torture and introduce a "Night of the Long knives'; this is a Red-Herring. The Bill will allow for the trials to begin again, soon.

[i]You do know that some of these guys 'detainees" have been represented by Navy JAG Officer's, who have done a very good job of representing them. One Lt. Cmdr Charles Swift helped to over-turn the Military Tribunals and who's client is Salim Hamden, a Yemeni, who once drove for Osama Bin Laden.[/i]

His preference is for the standard militsry cour-martial proceedings allowing for the suspect to meet his accuser. [u]One must understand the conditions of OPSEC to fully understand the crux of the problem; here is where the particulars need to be vetted.[/u]

[Lawman]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='353780' date='Sep 28 2006, 10:23 PM']And yet torture is used. Torture is used because torture may not be a succesful interrogation technique but it is effective for terrorization and for extracting politically useful statements.[/quote]

Serious question, what are we doing that you know for sure, to [u]you[/u] constitutes torture practices?

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Lawman' post='353964' date='Sep 29 2006, 08:11 AM']Bung,

You present valid points that needs to be presented to the American public in a comprehensive manner.
but, within the realm of politics, coupled with atmosphere of confusion created by the MSM, I serious doubt this to happen anytime soon.
Prior to the revised versions, guidelines and instructions I have seen were available as late as 1998, therefore whatever happened at Abuh-Graib should not of happened and the individuals involved are receiving their just punishment.
This is what I was refering to as coming soon; some have stated on here that this last Bill passage will allow for Torture and introduce a "Night of the Long knives'; this is a Red-Herring. The Bill will allow for the trials to begin again, soon.

[i]You do know that some of these guys 'detainees" have been represented by Navy JAG Officer's, who have done a very good job of representing them. One Lt. Cmdr Charles Swift helped to over-turn the Military Tribunals and who's client is Salim Hamden, a Yemeni, who once drove for Osama Bin Laden.[/i]

His preference is for the standard militsry cour-martial proceedings allowing for the suspect to meet his accuser. [u]One must understand the conditions of OPSEC to fully understand the crux of the problem; here is where the particulars need to be vetted.[/u][/quote]
I understand the crux of the argument, that divulging evidence at an open trial of any kind could compromise OPSEC procedures and bring to light how we gather and utilize intelligence. There's got to be a better way than indefinite confinement, unless that indefinite confinement was ordered as a sentence where the terrorist was proven guilty of crimes.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='353829' date='Sep 28 2006, 11:08 PM']Congratulations. With Senate passage of the bill, you now live in a nation which sanctions torture. What's next? Some skull-cracking and our very own homegrown version of the SA?

Mmm. Those of you who applaud this legislation, ought to remember, notwithstanding your brown-shirted befuddlement, the Night of the Long Knives.

"Ask not for whom the Knife comes, eventually, it comes for you."

I expect I'll be dead before then.[/quote]

it specifically bans torture: [url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2381222,00.html"]click here[/url]

why do you keep spreading these lies?

[i]The bill sanctions the use of special military courts to try suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay, and would allow the use of some evidence obtained by harsh interrogation methods. [/i]

what, letting them rot in gitmo is better than giving them their day in court finally? about the "harsh methods," i have no problem w/ water boarding (which is supposidely as harsh as it gets) when a.) we do it to our ours solders b.) causes no physical harm c.) it works almost everytime... if things get "harsher" than water boarding, then i don't agree w/ this law, but i believe that water boarding is as far as it goes...

[i]Crucially, it also eliminates the right of habeas corpus, stopping foreign prisoners from going to a federal court to challenge their own detention.[/i]

foreign prisoners don't deserve the same rights as americans...

[i]In one concession, defendants would, however, be given access to the evidence being used to prosecute them, even when it is classified.[/i]

this is a good concession, as long as the evidence isn't given to the prisoner... obviously, don't give your secrets to yoru enemies...

[i]The new legislation [b]forbids[/b] US guards from [b]inflicting treatment which could constitute a war crime [/b] – including [b]torture[/b], rape, murder, and [b]any act[/b] intended to cause [b]"serious" physical or mental pain[/b] – but gives the President the right to define and decide which other techniques can be used short of that. The CIA would be allowed to continue its secret prisons programme. [/i]

[Lawman]

[quote]There's got to be a better way than indefinite confinement, unless that indefinite confinement was ordered as a sentence where the terrorist was proven guilty of crimes.[/quote]

As you know, some (Detainee's) have been released......


..... and gone on to commit other terrorist acts.