The Final Word on Gitmo

[Zeitgeist]

Reigning Miss Universe Dayana Mendoza of Venezuela on her trip to Gitmo:

"It was a loooot of fun!," Mendoza wrote.
"I didn't want to leave, it was such a relaxing place, so calm and beautiful," she added.

Miss Universe says had "lot of fun" in Guantanamo

Really, does anything more need to be said on this issue? As far as I'm concerned, its settled. Ms. Mendoza has spoken.

:D

[Silk]

And you guys listen to a woman who made a career of sucking dicks why?

[Trieste]

Because she does it well is actually both beautiful and well-rounded, as is required to win a beauty contest.

[consortium11]

And you guys listen to a woman who made a career of sucking dicks why?

Outside of her naked shots, I don't think she's implicated in anything else.

She's no Riyo Mori or Zuleyka Rivera though...

[HairyHeretic]

And here I was hoping that was an April Fools gag story.

[Maeven]

And here I was hoping that was an April Fools gag story.

*snickers quietly at the double entendre*

[HairyHeretic]

*snickers quietly at the double entendre*

:P

[Oniya]

One thing to realize is that she was talking about her experience on the military base.  Years before 9/11, I knew someone whose father had been stationed at that base - on base is much like any other military base, but off base, you do not wear your dress whites, because the US presence there isn't exactly desired.  I'm sure that after 9/11 and the founding of Gitmo, the atmosphere down there got even worse, and the base became more insular. 

Is a USO-style guest greeted warmly and shown every possible courtesy?  Of course!  Performers that visit Iraq come away with glowing tales about how nice everyone was, and how happy they were to see these entertainers from the outside.  This is no different.

[Zeitgeist]

And you guys listen to a woman who made a career of sucking dicks why?

Perhaps for the same reason some listen to what Barney Frank has to say?

[MercyfulFate]

I can't believe anyone ever supported the idea of Gitmo. Terrible.

[Zakharra]

 Hundreds of millions did and do. It should have been handled better. Faster trials rather than letting them linger for so long before being charged.

  I am bothered by the attitude of bringing those who offered advice on Gitmo and the methods of interrogation, to trial. For giving an opinion.

[HairyHeretic]

It was slightly more than giving an opinion.

[MercyfulFate]

Many people didn't seem to realize that many Gitmo detainees were random people, not terrorists. In Afghanistan they paid Northern Alliance guys to get Al Qaeda members, so they wanted the money and rounded up anyone, and everyone to get a big bundle o' cash.

The War on Terror is a joke, just like the War on Drugs.

[Zakharra]

 Unless they were the ones making policy and enacting it, all they could give was advice and opinion. Which they should not be procecuted form. They were asked for advice and gave it.

[HairyHeretic]

So, "I was just following orders" is their defense then?

[consortium11]

So, "I was just following orders" is their defense then?

I don't think that's what Zakharra is saying at all. That would be for those who, using Zak's terms, were "making policy and enacting it". What's being referred to here is those who offered advice or gave opinion on it without being directly involved.

For example, should the people who claim that federal income tax is unconstitutional and write academic pieces on the historical/constitutional situation regarding it be prosecuted for doing that. All they are doing is offering advice/support for an arguement, but people following that advice have broken the law and been prosecuted?

On the Gitmo point it's a tale of two halfs. The rewards based system meant there were no doubt dozens of innocents there who should never have been there. On the other hand, several of the people held there and later released have gone on to (re)turn to fight for the Taliban or the like. Whether this was because they actually supported them to begin with or because of their treatment is another question that has to be considered.

I never liked Gitmo and I never supported it, but I can see why it was created and I feel I could put together a decent Devil's Advocate arguement for the place. The real issue now is what happens to those left there when the camp finally closes.

[HairyHeretic]

I suspect that anyone who was taken from their home to a prison in another country, treated harshly, tortured, and then released isn't going to have an awful lot of love for those responsible. I would not be surprised if that was enough to push someone into deciding to take revenge, and fight.

I can see the need for prisons. I can also see the need for due process. Trials should have been carried out. Torture should not. Those responsible for the torture, whether being the ones physically carrying it out, or those who signed bits of paper to say "Go ahead and do it." should be prosecuted under the law.

[Zakharra]

 Part of the problem is the definition of torture has become very fluid. It can and to many people means that is the prisoners suffer any discomfort, it is called torture. Being captured falls under that description. Being questioned, held in a cell. Anything falls under that description.

Should they be interrogated? Yes. I have no problem with that. I would like to see proof on both sides that torture does and does not work. And what constitutes torture.

So, "I was just following orders" is their defense then? /quest]

No. That is the guards. I'm talking about the Defense and Judicial lawyers whos opinions were asked on matters of policy by the President, V. President and their staffs when they were formulating thoe policy. I've heard and read that those who offered advice should be prosecuted.

[HairyHeretic]

Alright, let me ask you this then. Do you consider waterboarding .. the simulation of being drowned .. to be torture? I believe it is called such when its being taught as part of the SERE program that some US military forces go through. Or is it only torture when other people are carrying it out?

If it is not torture, and is a legal investigative procedure, why not use it everywhere? I suspect a lot of normal criminal investigations would come to a faster conclusion if that was used to gather information from those suspected of crimes.

Torture may produce results. It will certainly get answers, sooner or later. Of course, those answers may simply be the person being tortured saying anything at all to get the torture to stop. I suspect after sufficient torture anyone here would admit to being a terrorist, whether it were true or not. All you'd want is the pain to stop.

Being captured and held in a cell is not torture. Being made to think that you are going to drown ... a technique that is, IIRC, so dangerous that they need a doctor there with them the whole time ... is. And here's the thing ..  it's not going to be over after one or two demonstrations. It is going to be done again and again, and it's not going to stop until such time as those questioning are satisfied with the quality of the answers.

If the lawyers were simply asked "Is this torture?" then they probably shouldn't be prosecuted for giving an opinion. If it was more a case of "We want to do this. How can we justify it to make it just about legal?" then that's another matter.

[Zakharra]

 I do not consider waterboarding torture. The area of psychological interrogation/torture is extremely vague. What some can tolerate, others cannot. Even physical interrogation (not necessarily beating) can be vague. What is the limit? Is sleep deprivation, loud music and tactics like that torture?

a technique that is, IIRC, so dangerous that they need a doctor there with them the whole time ...

The doctor is there I think because the person might go into shock. If it's done properly there is no physical harm done to the person.

If the lawyers were simply asked "Is this torture?" then they probably shouldn't be prosecuted for giving an opinion. If it was more a case of "We want to do this. How can we justify it to make it just about legal?" then that's another matter.

That is a VERY vague and dangerous precedent to set for prosecution. If they could find a legal way to do it, that is legal.  If they were asked how and gave an honest opinion, with precedent. that's leagal and should not be procecutible.

[HairyHeretic]

I do not consider waterboarding torture. The area of psychological interrogation/torture is extremely vague. What some can tolerate, others cannot. Even physical interrogation (not necessarily beating) can be vague. What is the limit? Is sleep deprivation, loud music and tactics like that torture?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/torture

"the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty."

"  1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
   2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.

# Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony:"

Seems to me that drowning someone fits that definition pretty well.

From the following link

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/waterboarding

John McCain, in a debate, said he believed that waterboarding was torture. Given he'd been tortured himself as a PoW, I think that lends some credibility to his opinion.

The doctor is there I think because the person might go into shock. If it's done properly there is no physical harm done to the person.

Again, from the above link

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, psychological injury, and death.

No harm, eh?

Bent Sørensen, Senior Medical Consultant to the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims and former member of the United Nations Committee against Torture has said:

    It’s a clear-cut case: Waterboarding can without any reservation be labeled as torture. It fulfils all of the four central criteria that according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) defines an act of torture. First, when water is forced into your lungs in this fashion, in addition to the pain you are likely to experience an immediate and extreme fear of death. You may even suffer a heart attack from the stress or damage to the lungs and brain from inhalation of water and oxygen deprivation. In other words there is no doubt that waterboarding causes severe physical and/or mental suffering – one central element in the UNCAT’s definition of torture. In addition the CIA’s waterboarding clearly fulfills the three additional definition criteria stated in the Convention for a deed to be labeled torture, since it is 1) done intentionally, 2) for a specific purpose and 3) by a representative of a state – in this case the US.

That is a VERY vague and dangerous precedent to set for prosecution. If they could find a legal way to do it, that is legal.  If they were asked how and gave an honest opinion, with precedent. that's leagal and should not be procecutible.

I believe the precedent is already there

In addition, both under the War Crimes Act and international law, violators of the laws of war are criminally liable under the command responsibility, and they could still be prosecuted for war crimes. Commenting on the so-called "torture memoranda" Scott Horton pointed out

    the possibility that the authors of these memoranda counseled the use of lethal and unlawful techniques, and therefore face criminal culpability themselves. That, after all, is the teaching of United States v. Altstötter, the Nuremberg case brought against German Justice Department lawyers whose memoranda crafted the basis for implementation of the infamous “Night and Fog Decree.”

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, several memoranda, including the Bybee memo, were written analyzing the legal position and possibilities in the treatment of prisoners. The memos, known today as the "torture memos," advocate enhanced interrogation techniques, while pointing out that refuting the Geneva Conventions would reduce the possibility of prosecution for war crimes. In addition, a new definition of torture was issued. Most actions that fall under the international definition do not fall within this new definition advocated by the U.S.

Changing the definition of the act in order to give it a veneer of legality may make it legal, but it does not make it right. And if the law can be changed once to make an act legal, it can be reversed to make it illegal again.

I also find it ironic that the US has in the past brought up on war crimes charges those who performed waterboarding against their soldiers.

But if they decide to do it, its now a legal interogation technique. Perhaps you can explain to me the difference there.

Oh, and if you check that link you'll find lots of other interesting material, plus source information too.

[MercyfulFate]

I do not consider waterboarding torture. The area of psychological interrogation/torture is extremely vague. What some can tolerate, others cannot. Even physical interrogation (not necessarily beating) can be vague. What is the limit? Is sleep deprivation, loud music and tactics like that torture?


The doctor is there I think because the person might go into shock. If it's done properly there is no physical harm done to the person.


That is a VERY vague and dangerous precedent to set for prosecution. If they could find a legal way to do it, that is legal.  If they were asked how and gave an honest opinion, with precedent. that's leagal and should not be procecutible.

Waterboarding isn't about physical harm, it's about psychological torture. You are made to think you're going to drown, and feel that way as it's happening.

It doesn't work, that's shown by the fact that they waterboarded one "suspect" over 200 times. If it worked, they'd only need to do it a few times.

Furthermore, it is torture, regardless of how you feel. The Japanese waterboarded American soldiers and we villified them for it. Now, over 50 years later it's suddenly okay?

I don't believe in bending or breaking the rules in pursuit of a vague goal, e.g. terrorism. When will it end? Should we waterboard rape suspects?

[Zakharra]

 

Furthermore, it is torture, regardless of how you feel. The Japanese waterboarded American soldiers and we villified them for it. Now, over 50 years later it's suddenly okay?

If we did it to, then we should not have done so. In WWII. we condemned the Germans for bombing English cities, then we firebombed both German and Japanese cities.

I thought they put a thin sheet of plastic over the face so the person did not breath in water. It's how it was described to me.

Geneva Convention definition of torture, term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,   It's somewhat vague in terminology since that constitutes suffering is subject to change.

Heck, wether the detainees were even covered under the Geneva Conventions is an unknown. Both sides can point to parts of the Convention that supports their side.

On psycological torture, I have less reservation on doing that. Physical shouldn't be done, but the mental is more.. fluid for me. ANY thing can be considered torture. It varies from person to person. Which is why I asked about sleep deprivation, loud music. that constitutes torture to some people. Hell, not getting 3 meals a day in the proper dietary manner is torture. ie, feeding muslims pork.

Most of interrogation is breaking a person mentally. To get them to talk to you in one way or another. Wether through drugs, wearing them down or what have you. All of which can be considered torture.

[Oniya]

There are certain things that would constitute torture no matter who they were done to.  However, for a good example of psychological torture, there is a part of George Orwell's 1984 that will stick with me till the end of days.

'You asked me once,' said O'Brien, 'what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world.'
     The door opened again. A guard came in, carrying something made of wire, a box or basket of some kind. He set it down on the further table. Because of the position in which O'Brien was standing. Winston could not see what the thing was.
     'The worst thing in the world,' said O'Brien, 'varies from individual to individual. It may be burial alive, or death by fire, or by drowning, or by impalement, or fifty other deaths. There are cases where it is some quite trivial thing, not even fatal.'
     He had moved a little to one side, so that Winston had a better view of the thing on the table. It was an oblong wire cage with a handle on top for carrying it by. Fixed to the front of it was something that looked like a fencing mask, with the concave side outwards. Although it was three or four metres
away from him, he could see that the cage was divided lengthways into two compartments, and that there was some kind of creature in each. They were rats.
     'In your case, said O'Brien, 'the worst thing in the world happens to be rats.'
     A sort of premonitory tremor, a fear of he was not certain what, had passed through Winston as soon as he caught his first glimpse of the cage. But at this moment the meaning of the mask-like attachment in front of it suddenly sank into him. His bowels seemed to turn to water.
     'You can't do that!' he cried out in a high cracked voice. 'You couldn't, you couldn't! It's impossible.'
     'Do you remember,' said O'Brien, 'the moment of panic that used to occur in your dreams? There was a wall of blackness in front of you, and a roaring sound in your ears. There was something terrible on the other side of the wall. You knew that you knew what it was, but you dared not drag it into the open. It was the rats that were on the other side of the wall.'
     'O'Brien!' said Winston, making an effort to control his voice. 'You know this is not necessary. What is it that you want me to do?'
     O'Brien made no direct answer. When he spoke it was in the schoolmasterish manner that he sometimes affected. He looked thoughtfully into the distance, as though he were addressing an audience somewhere behind Winston's back.
     'By itself,' he said, 'pain is not always enough. There are occasions when a human being will stand out against pain, even to the point of death. But for everyone there is something unendurable  --  something that cannot be contemplated. Courage and cowardice are not involved. If you are falling from a height it is not cowardly to clutch at a rope. If you have come up from deep water it is not cowardly to fill your lungs with air. It is merely an instinct which cannot be destroyed. It is the same with the rats. For you, they are unendurable. They are a form of pressure that you cannot withstand. Even if you wished to. You will do what is required of you.
     'But what is it, what is it? How can I do it if I don't know what it is?'
     O'Brien picked up the cage and brought it across to the nearer table. He set it down carefully on the baize cloth. Winston could hear the blood singing in his ears. He had the feeling of sitting in utter loneliness. He was in the middle of a great empty plain, a flat desert drenched with sunlight, across which all sounds came to him out of immense distances. Yet the cage with the rats was not two metres away from him. They were enormous rats. They were at the age when a rat's muzzle grows blunt and fierce and his fur brown instead of grey.
     'The rat,' said O'Brien, still addressing his invisible audience, 'although a rodent, is carnivorous. You are aware of that. You will have heard of the things that happen in the poor quarters of this town. In some streets a woman dare not leave her baby alone in the house, even for five minutes. The rats are certain to attack it. Within quite a small time they will strip it to the bones. They also attack sick or dying  people. They show astonishing  intelligence in knowing when a human being is helpless.'
     There was an outburst of squeals from the cage. It seemed to reach Winston from far away. The rats were fighting; they were trying to get at each other through the partition.  He heard also a deep groan of despair. That, too, seemed to come from outside himself.
     O'Brien picked up the cage, and, as he did so, pressed something in it. There was a sharp click. Winston made a frantic effort to tear himself loose from the chair. It was hopeless; every part of him, even his head, was held immovably. O'Brien moved the cage nearer. It was less than a metre from Winston's face.
     'I have pressed the first lever,' said O'Brien. 'You understand the construction of this cage. The mask will fit over your head, leaving no exit. When I press this other lever, the door of the cage will slide up. These starving brutes will shoot out of it like bullets. Have you ever seen a rat leap through the air? They will leap on to your face and bore straight into it. Sometimes they attack the eyes first. Sometimes they burrow through the cheeks and devour the tongue.'
     The cage was nearer; it was closing in. Winston heard a succession of shrill cries which appeared to be occurring in the air above his head. But he fought furiously against his panic. To think, to think, even with a split second left  --  to think was the only hope. Suddenly the foul musty odour of the brutes struck his nostrils. There was a violent convulsion of nausea inside him, and he almost lost consciousness. Everything had gone black. For an instant he was insane, a screaming animal. Yet he came out of the blackness clutching an idea. There was one and only one way to save himself. He must interpose another human being, the body of another human being, between himself and the rats.
     The circle of the mask was large enough now to shut out the vision of anything else. The wire door was a couple of hand-spans from his face. The rats knew what was coming now. One of them was leaping up and down, the other, an old scaly grandfather of the sewers, stood up, with his pink hands against the bars, and fiercely sniffed the air. Winston could see the whiskers and the yellow teeth. Again the black panic took hold of him. He was blind, helpless, mindless.
     'It was a common punishment in Imperial China,' said O'Brien as didactically as ever.
     The mask was closing on his face. The wire brushed his cheek. And then  --  no, it was not relief, only hope, a tiny fragment of hope. Too late, perhaps too  late. But he had suddenly understood that in the whole world there was just one person to whom he could transfer his punishment  -- one body that he could thrust between himself and the rats. And he was shouting frantically, over and over.
     'Do it to Julia! Do it to Julia! Not me!  Julia!  I  don't care  what  you  do to her. Tear her face off, strip her to the bones. Not me! Julia! Not me!'
     He was falling backwards, into enormous depths, away from the rats. He was still strapped in the chair, but he had fallen through  the  floor, through the walls of the building, through the earth, through the oceans,  through  the  atmosphere,  into outer  space,  into the gulfs between the stars -- always away, away, away from the rats.  He  was  light  years  distant,  but O'Brien  was  still  standing  at his side. There was still the cold touch of wire against his cheek. But through the  darkness that  enveloped  him  he heard another metallic click, and knew that the cage door had clicked shut and not open.

[Trieste]

If we did it to, then we should not have done so. In WWII. we condemned the Germans for bombing English cities, then we firebombed both German and Japanese cities.

I thought they put a thin sheet of plastic over the face so the person did not breath in water. It's how it was described to me.

No. Waterboarding is done over the face, directly to the face in most cases. It is, as mentioned, to simulate drowning. The very point is for the water to be inhaled and swallowed. Sometimes a cloth is applied to the face, but that is more to add the disorientation of a blindfold and the extra constriction (have you ever tried to breathe through wet cloth?). Additionally, the way the water is applied to the face? If plastic were applied, the pressure would - at least in some cases - press the plastic down across the mouth and nose, causing suffocation.

It has physical consequences; it can be the cause of muscle spasms that prevent you from breathing properly, which then causes suffocation. It hits your gag reflex, which can cause uncontrolled vomiting and aspiration. As always, the extreme stress can trigger a heart attack. And what if the victim is an asthmatic? That adds a whole new level of fun.

Lastly, addressing the fact that it simulates drowning, that's pretty much the same thing as holding someone face down in a basin of water, or physically squeezing off their airway by grabbing their neck. It establishes power, and only works if you can make your victim believe that you really will kill them. That is torture. It's pretty much the worst threat there is, on top of doing physical harm. While the argument could be made that the torture is necessary for the safety and security of our nation - and we do all sorts of things that are "wrong but necessary" in the name of safety - it should never be dismissed as not-torture. We, as a culture, need to remain aware of that.

[MercyfulFate]

If we did it to, then we should not have done so. In WWII. we condemned the Germans for bombing English cities, then we firebombed both German and Japanese cities.

I thought they put a thin sheet of plastic over the face so the person did not breath in water. It's how it was described to me.

Geneva Convention definition of torture, term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,   It's somewhat vague in terminology since that constitutes suffering is subject to change.

Heck, wether the detainees were even covered under the Geneva Conventions is an unknown. Both sides can point to parts of the Convention that supports their side.

On psycological torture, I have less reservation on doing that. Physical shouldn't be done, but the mental is more.. fluid for me. ANY thing can be considered torture. It varies from person to person. Which is why I asked about sleep deprivation, loud music. that constitutes torture to some people. Hell, not getting 3 meals a day in the proper dietary manner is torture. ie, feeding muslims pork.

Most of interrogation is breaking a person mentally. To get them to talk to you in one way or another. Wether through drugs, wearing them down or what have you. All of which can be considered torture.

Well condemning Germany for being the aggressors, and bombing to stop them is not exactly comparable.

Interrogation generally can't be considered torture, unless they're crossing the line.

[Zakharra]

 

term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,

That is being used to cover a wide range of methods of interrogation. My mate's oldest daughter thinks that doing anything other than politely asking the detainees things is torture. She truely believes that therte should be no coheresion at all used. Physical (sleep deprivation and such), mental or even drugs, is torture. I've seen news reports from several years ago that the writers suggest that being detained is torture.

[MercyfulFate]

That is being used to cover a wide range of methods of interrogation. My mate's oldest daughter thinks that doing anything other than politely asking the detainees things is torture. She truely believes that therte should be no coheresion at all used. Physical (sleep deprivation and such), mental or even drugs, is torture. I've seen news reports from several years ago that the writers suggest that being detained is torture.

Definitions of torture on the Web:
anguish: extreme mental distress
unbearable physical pain
agony: intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical pain; "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the damned"
torment: torment emotionally or mentally
distortion: the act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean
subject to torture; "The sinners will be tormented in Hell, according to the Bible"
the deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons in an attempt to force another person to yield information or to make a confession or for any other reason; "it required unnatural torturing to extract a confession"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Or:

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."[1]

[setojurai]

I think some people tend to forget that soldiers have a code of conduct to adhere to by law, and that we are also required to follow all lawful orders given to us.  Of course, this code of conduct requires us to disobey and report any unlawful orders.  The "They say they where just following orders therefor they are evil" schtick is horribly unfair.  Does the cop that is told to gun down a dangerous criminal get tried for murder?  No.  The DO go under investigation to make sure that the killing was justified, but they aren't criminals for doing their duty.  Yes, Gitmo was badly handled by the Government, but those who Serve should not be held responsible for those who give the orders in the first place's decisions to act in such a fashion.  Should they be held accountable for acting outside of orders, or committing acts that flagrently fly in the face of the Code of Conduct and the Laws of Warfare?  Yes indeed.  That's part of what's called the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which all soldiers serving the United States are required by Federal law to follow.  If a Politician says "Go Do" then the Soldier at the end of that chain of orders must Go Do.  Why then should the soldier be punished for doing his duty?  Why then, should the politician be allowed to get away scott free?  Before you decree someone to be evil because of what they do, walk a mile in their shoes.  Find out what they are obligated and prevented from doing by that Duty.

Punish not those who, in good faith, willingly Serve, regardless of that capacity, be it Military or Law Enforcement, or even Public Safety.  Punish those, who in self interest decide that Such Must Be Done when there are better, and perhaps even more efficient ways.  It took 30 years for those who Serve to trust those who do not after their treatment Post Vietnam.  Please let's not make it another 30 before they're trusted again.  Please let's not again go down that dark path of Us versus Them.  Too much hatred and evil came from that on both sides.

[Salernine]

Last I checked, most information obtained by torture was to be discarded anyway because the validity of said information would be questionable at best, downright fallacious at worst.

[setojurai]

Good point.  Torture may be a fairly grey area in world politicis, but using it is still a pretty dumb move to gain intel.

[Scott]

I was stationed in GTMO, and damnit she's right. The base is a really laid back and relaxed command to be stationed at. I remember cookouts, outdoor movies, group car washes, banana rats, cheap alcohol, the best fishing anywhere, and soaking in the "hot tub" which was runoff water from the desalinization plant.

The sunsets were beautiful, and after you got use to the fact that it was a zillion degrees and you couldn't go anywhere, it was a great lifestyle... it felt more like a family than a duty station, and honestly I miss it.

The island changed a lot when the Cuban and Haitian exoduses happened. The families were evacuated and the command was absorbed into a joint task force. The base housed thousands of Cuban and Haitian detainees, as well as hundreds more from all branches of the military. Even then though the place retained it's laid back feel, and I'd hate it if they close that base.     

There were 240 prisoners that were there when she was. They could be housed in an area no bigger than, a couple of double wide trailers. I doubt they kept her in the detainee area long, so I'm sure what she saw was a beautiful base. 




 

[Zeitgeist]

Last I checked, most information obtained by torture was to be discarded anyway because the validity of said information would be questionable at best, downright fallacious at worst.

Good point.  Torture may be a fairly grey area in world politicis, but using it is still a pretty dumb move to gain intel.

I make the argument that why is it smart to disclose to the world, more importantly our enemies and potential enemies, what we will or wont do?

Keep them guessing, let them think the worst. We can let our allies know via back-door diplomatic channels what is really going on.

But to announce to the world we will do 'A' and 'B' but not 'C' is just down right foolish in my opinion.

[Vekseid]

I make the argument that why is it smart to disclose to the world, more importantly our enemies and potential enemies, what we will or wont do?

Because it keeps our soldiers safer.

Keep them guessing, let them think the worst. We can let our allies know via back-door diplomatic channels what is really going on.

And when an American soldier has his eyelids removed and acid poured on, his testicles burned off and a hot poker driven up his rectum, he has people like you to thank for setting that standard.

But to announce to the world we will do 'A' and 'B' but not 'C' is just down right foolish in my opinion.

Comparing the treatment of prisoners to military tactics is, at best, an attempt to shift the purpose of the topic.

Treating prisoners of war well, with respect, and making your enemies aware of this, is one of the most brilliant military tactics that we ever learned from World War II. Even a child can comprehend the reasons.

First there is the matter of political will. Supporting a widely-disdained practice - especially those we actually brought people up on war crimes for saps political will and sabotages the effectiveness of our military.
Second torture is only effective when you know you have two people who are aware of the same bit of information that you are not aware of. It is otherwise useless. In addition, enemies are generally aware of this and structure their cells accordingly, not only for torture but also the third point.
Third a relaxed, comfortable atmosphere where prisoners are treated with respect is far more conducive to gaining information. Hanns Scharff was by far the most effective interrogator of World War II, and he never so much as raised his voice.

Torture does not gain information. In fact, given Scharff's success, all evidence points to torture actually losing us information, and time.

And if people have confidence that we won't use torture, even given that, then they will likewise be less inclined to take needless risks of themselves or others.

Torture does not work, torture sabotages our political will, torture hinders our ability to gather information, torture endangers our troops. Opposing it is perfectly rational, from all grounds.

Supporting it, misleading people, or hiding our practices regarding the treatment is not just foolish or idiotic in my opinion.

In my opinion, because it hinders our capacity as a nation to defend ourselves on multiple levels,

I consider torture to be an act of treason.

That is my opinion.

[Zeitgeist]

You miss my argument completely Vekseid. I'm not saying you torture detainees. I'm only saying, don't announce to the world what you will or wont do. It is the threat of what we may do that would be useful.

[Vekseid]

You miss my argument completely Vekseid. I'm not saying you torture detainees. I'm only saying, don't announce to the world what you will or wont do. It is the threat of what we may do that would be useful.

Except it isn't.

Ignore for a moment that the reason we sign the Geneva convention is to keep our troops from being tortured, and the reason we abide by it is to ensure that more nations abide by it themselves.

The fact is, torture is an empty threat. Even if you perform it, at best you gain nothing. At worst, you lose valuable political will.

Torture is a fundamentally lose-lose situation.

[Zeitgeist]

Except it isn't.

Ignore for a moment that the reason we sign the Geneva convention is to keep our troops from being tortured, and the reason we abide by it is to ensure that more nations abide by it themselves.

The fact is, torture is an empty threat. Even if you perform it, at best you gain nothing. At worst, you lose valuable political will.

Torture is a fundamentally lose-lose situation.

Well I simply disagree. In the toolbox of options it wouldn't be the first one I chose, but I would still keep it in reserve on those rare occasions nothing else worked and time was of the essence.

I think it is imminently naive to think our opponents or enemies will treat our soldiers better based on the Geneva Conventions, or that the world would look more favorably upon the United States because we've supposedly ruled out that option.

Extremists have no interest in 'playing fair'.

That's my opinion, of course, and I realize its neither a popular one nor one many agree with. And that is okay by me.

[Vekseid]

Well I simply disagree. In the toolbox of options it wouldn't be the first one I chose, but I would still keep it in reserve on those rare occasions nothing else worked and time was of the essence.

I think it is imminently naive to think our opponents or enemies will treat our soldiers better based on the Geneva Conventions, or that the world would look more favorably upon the United States because we've supposedly ruled out that option.

Extremists have no interest in 'playing fair'.

I think you missed my point.

Extremists, don't. You are probably well aware of our early successes in Afghanistan due to roadbuilding. Like I said, the goal of adhering to and promoting the Geneva conventions is to get more communities to agree with its principles. If we torture, or give the appearance of condoning it, more potential enemies will decide to.

[Caeli]

Well I simply disagree. In the toolbox of options it wouldn't be the first one I chose, but I would still keep it in reserve on those rare occasions nothing else worked and time was of the essence.

I think it is imminently naive to think our opponents or enemies will treat our soldiers better based on the Geneva Conventions, or that the world would look more favorably upon the United States because we've supposedly ruled out that option.

Extremists have no interest in 'playing fair'.

That's my opinion, of course, and I realize its neither a popular one nor one many agree with. And that is okay by me.

I don't usually dive into P&R because my knowledge isn't nearly as in-depth or learned, and my wording not nearly so eloquent or concise as others who frequent this board. However, I don't think it is naive to think that our opponents or enemies will treat our soldiers better based on the Geneva Convention, just because we (the United States) follows it.

The United States has signed and agreed to the principles in the Geneva Convention precisely because it is a public statement that the government will not torture foreign prisoners of war and soldiers captured in combat. We rule it (torture) out because if our enemies (too ambiguous a term; something more specific, or at the very least soldiers of a foreign military) know that we will not torture their soldiers, then they have more reason not to torture ours. Basically, it's a guarantee of safety for our soldiers if they become POWs.

You mention extremists, and you're right - they could probably care less if we said we followed the principles written on a piece of paper. However, if more communities in the world begin thinking of torture as morally reprehensible, there are fewer hostile groups that would utilize torture as an option, as it drastically decreases their credibility and potential support from widely recognized states.

Was the idea of morality in war always so prominent an issue? No. But its presence in international politics has definitely increased in the past decades. The principles of the Geneva convention might very well similarly follow that path.

[Lavaske]

I make the argument that why is it smart to disclose to the world, more importantly our enemies and potential enemies, what we will or wont do?

Keep them guessing, let them think the worst. We can let our allies know via back-door diplomatic channels what is really going on.

But to announce to the world we will do 'A' and 'B' but not 'C' is just down right foolish in my opinion.

I think it is a necessity that the U.S.A. states loudly that it does not, in any way shape or form, condone torture.

To think that I pay taxes to a nation that does not explicitly state that such things are wrong is utterly abhorrent to me, and it's enough to make me consider whether or not sending money in to the government is an act of evil, knowing full well what they might do with it.

Taking people from their homes and detaining them in a run down facility without trial for the better part of a decade is not a "Good" thing to do, in fact, it's down right f**'ed up.

The fact of the matter is that these people are just as human as we are, and for as strongly as they hate us, we hate them back.  Sometimes I think that the only difference between us and them is that we are bigger and stronger, and that we can hit back harder.  The United States needs to treat its prisoners better.  Imprisoning people is only going to make the situation worse.