In 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.

"Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. "We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

So the moral of the story is. Do as the US says, not as the US does.

Exactly.

Whatever suits your fancy, USA, Australia will be right behind you, well, At least the government, You might not get a welcome reception at APEC(OPEC) here. thats right..you didn't.

It'd be nice to hear that in the media. Torture hasn't been condemned enough.

Neither has terrorism. :mad:

Yes the damn media all they do is promote terrorism

In 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.

"Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. "We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

So the moral of the story is. Do as the US says, not as the US does.


You conviently forget that in WWII POW's were soldiers, and as such were covered under the 1929 Geneva Convention, and the International Laws of War.

The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 accords POW status only to enemy forces who follow certain rules: wear uniforms; do not deliberately target civilians; and otherwise fight in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Al Qaida and the Taliban militia did not follow these rules because, as groups, they systematically and deliberately have attacked innocent civilians and they do not wear clothing that distinguishes them from civilians. Additionally al Qaida is not a party to the Geneva Convention and has no right under international law to wage war

Even if detainees were POWs, they would not have the right to lawyers, access to the courts to challenge their detention, or the right to release prior to the end of hostilities.

Nothing in the Geneva Convention provides POWs such rights and POWs in past wars have not generally been given these rights.

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is contrary to the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, which ruled, in a 5-3 decision, in favor of Hamdan in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case.

The Court's complex 73-page opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter, holds that (among other things):

"Enemy combatants" are protected by the Geneva Conventions.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

You conviently forget that in WWII POW's were soldiers, and as such were covered under the 1929 Geneva Convention, and the International Laws of War.

The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 accords POW status only to enemy forces who follow certain rules: wear uniforms; do not deliberately target civilians; and otherwise fight in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Al Qaida and the Taliban militia did not follow these rules because, as groups, they systematically and deliberately have attacked innocent civilians and they do not wear clothing that distinguishes them from civilians. Additionally al Qaida is not a party to the Geneva Convention and has no right under international law to wage war

Even if detainees were POWs, they would not have the right to lawyers, access to the courts to challenge their detention, or the right to release prior to the end of hostilities.

Nothing in the Geneva Convention provides POWs such rights and POWs in past wars have not generally been given these rights.

excellent points.
to add to that: the Japanese water boarding is different than the American version.

when the guy hangs upside down like the Japanese did the water actually gets into his nose, which is pretty painful and can lead to death by drowning. the American version is entirely safe and only gives the illusion of drowning.

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is contrary to the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, which ruled, in a 5-3 decision, in favor of Hamdan in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case.

The Court's complex 73-page opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter, holds that (among other things):

"Enemy combatants" are protected by the Geneva Conventions.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.


On June 5, 2007, Hamdan and Canadian youth Omar Khadr, had all charges against them dismissed.[38][39][40] The judges presiding over their military commissions ruled that the Military Commissions Act did not give them the jurisdiction to try Hamdan and Khadr, because it only authorized the trial of "unlawful enemy combatants". Hamdan and Khadr's Combatant Status Review Tribunals, like those of all the other Guantanamo captives, had confirmed that they were only "enemy combatants".
The Military Commissions Act need only be amended by Congress to better--more specifically--define "unlawful enemy combatants" as such for the purposes of future tribunals.

It otherwise says nothing about the situational innocence of the guests at Hotel Guantanamo Bay.

And it says nothing about Hamdan and Khadar not being brought up on refreshed charges prosecutable under the redefined statutes.

Are Hamdan and Khadar both out on bail?

Thank you.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.


The Military Commissions Act need only be amended by Congress to better--more specifically--define "unlawful enemy combatants" as such for the purposes of future tribunals.

It otherwise says nothing about the situational innocence of the guests at Hotel Guantanamo Bay.

And it says nothing about Hamdan and Khadar not being brought up on refreshed charges prosecutable under the redefined statutes.

Are Hamdan and Khadar both out on bail?

Thank you.

it supports what he has to say your just nit picking to find something to latch on to

The technique:


The waterboarding technique was characterized in 2005 by former CIA director Porter J. Goss as a "professional interrogation technique."[17] According to press accounts, a cloth or plastic wrap is placed over or in the person's mouth, and water is poured on to the person's head. As far as the details of this technique, press accounts differ - one article describes "dripping water into a wet cloth over a suspect's face" [18], another states that "cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him"[19].

Two televised segments, one from Fox News and one from Current TV, demonstrate a waterboarding technique that may be the subject of these press descriptions. [20][21] In the videos, each correspondent is held against a board by the interrogators. In the Current TV segment, a rag is then forced into the correspondent's mouth, and several pitchers of water are poured onto the rag. The interrogators periodically remove the rag, and the correspondent is seen to gasp for breath.

The Fox News segment mentions five "phases," of which the first three are shown. In the first phase, water is simply poured onto the correspondent's face. The second phase is similar to the Current TV episode. In phase three, plastic wrap is placed over the correspondent's face, and a hole is poked into it over his mouth. Water is poured into his mouth through the hole, causing him to gag. He mentions that it really does cause him to gag; that it could lead to asphyxiation; and that he could stand it for only a few seconds.

CIA officers who subject themselves to the technique last an average of 14 seconds before caving in.[22]

Poorly executed waterboarding can cause extreme pain and damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by == oxygen deprivation, and sometimes broken bones because of the restraints applied to the struggling victim. The psychological effects can last long after waterboarding ends. Prolonged waterboarding can also cause death.

So, how many people waterboarded? What happened to them? Were they charged with anything? Where are they now?

it supports what he has to say your just nit picking to find something to latch on to
LOL

LOL

while i'll admit it is good to be able to laugh at yourself why are you doing so?

The technique:



So, how many people waterboarded? What happened to them? Were they charged with anything? Where are they now?

and why on earth would the government reveal this sort of stat? just be happy that this technique exists cause it protects your dissentin' truth-to-power-speakin ass

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.


The Military Commissions Act need only be amended by Congress to better--more specifically--define "unlawful enemy combatants" as such for the purposes of future tribunals.

It otherwise says nothing about the situational innocence of the guests at Hotel Guantanamo Bay.

And it says nothing about Hamdan and Khadar not being brought up on refreshed charges prosecutable under the redefined statutes.

Are Hamdan and Khadar both out on bail?

Thank you.


Nevertheless, the Geneva Conventions apply, contrary to Baron's claims.

it supports what he has to say your just nit picking to find something to latch on to

But it you, who have nothing to latch on to, the decision made it clear that the remedy to the situation was for Congress to enact enabling legislation.

Congress passed that legislation, and the Tribunals were authorized.

The Court didn't vacate the detention, or the fact that these individuals could be held and tried.

Nevertheless, the Geneva Conventions apply, contrary to Baron's claims.

Only until a regualarly constituted Tribunal (with the enabling legeslation by congress the "competent tribunal" was met) determins that these individuals are not POW's, or Legal Combatants.

Geneva Convention III Article 5


Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.



If there is any doubt as to whether the person benefits from "combatant" status, they must be held as a POW until they have faced a "competent tribunal" (GCIII Art 5) to decide the issue. Combatants who may be deemed not to benefit from such protection accorded by the Third Geneva Convention include spies, mercenaries, members of militias not under the command of the armed forces who do not fit into the categories specified above, and those who have breached other laws or customs of war

The technique:

"The Fox News segment mentions five "phases," of which the first three are shown. In the first phase, water is simply poured onto the correspondent's face. The second phase is similar to the Current TV episode. In phase three, plastic wrap is placed over the correspondent's face, and a hole is poked into it over his mouth. Water is poured into his mouth through the hole, causing him to gag. He mentions that it really does cause him to gag; that it could lead to asphyxiation; and that he could stand it for only a few seconds.

CIA officers who subject themselves to the technique last an average of 14 seconds before caving in.[22]

Poorly executed waterboarding can cause extreme pain and damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by == oxygen deprivation, and sometimes broken bones because of the restraints applied to the struggling victim. The psychological effects can last long after waterboarding ends. Prolonged waterboarding can also cause death. "

Dear Sam,

I agree that this is terrible. I feel for those poor people.

But you must remember that waterboarding is a technique not just used by the CIA. Why, it's used by lots of people - agents of the WWII Japanese military, for example. You cannot associate waterboarding with the CIA, or with Americans, just because some CIA agents who happen to be Americans use it. Do all CIA agents use waterboarding? Of course not. Only a tiny minority use waterboarding. The vast majority of CIA agents live in complete peace with the population of people being imprisoned for radicalism. Do you honestly think all CIA agents run around waterboarding people? Please. This is so naive. :rolleyes: These agents have merely been radicalized by terrorists that blow up civilians. There needs to be less terrorism, and more job training and education and social programs for these CIA agents.

So to sum up: this is not a "CIA" technique specifically. And criticizing its use is only likely to produce more CIA agents who waterboard. The best thing to do would be to engage in a dialogue with them, so you can avoid hurting their feelings and further radicalizing them.

Maybe the US should just waterboard all those who peskily protest waterboarding.

That would teach 'em.

~String

No! There would be more waterboarding! Quit trying to radicalize waterboarders!

The technique:



So, how many people waterboarded? What happened to them? Were they charged with anything? Where are they now?
For what it's worth, I've had it done to me a few times and while it was extremely unpleasant, it wasn't anything I would call torture. Personally, I think calling something like this "torture" dilutes the term beyond any further usefulness, and would probably make a real torturer giggle.

The points raised in this thread (and probably every other thread anywhere) about the Geneva Conventions' lack of applicability to these so-called "enemy combatants" are a pretty good indicator of how woefully out of date they are. The real solution, in my opinion, is a new Convention that very clearly delineates what is allowable and what isn't in terms of interrogation techniques. I'd like to see something like that, but I don't think the US is in the best position to suggest that right now.

For what it's worth, I've had it done to me a few times and while it was extremely unpleasant, it wasn't anything I would call torture. Personally, I think calling something like this "torture" dilutes the term beyond any further usefulness, and would probably make a real torturer giggle.

The points raised in this thread (and probably every other thread anywhere) about the Geneva Conventions' lack of applicability to these so-called "enemy combatants" are a pretty good indicator of how woefully out of date they are. The real solution, in my opinion, is a new Convention that very clearly delineates what is allowable and what isn't in terms of interrogation techniques. I'd like to see something like that, but I don't think the US is in the best position to suggest that right now.

Allan Dershowitz argues (and i agree wholeheartedly) that under the right circumstances (e.g. the ticking time bomb) any civilized country will indeed torture despite the grandstanding. so the question should be not whether torture (the real meaning, not waterboarding) should or should not occur, but whether there should be laws outlining the right circumstances when it can legally occur. the alternative is to do it anyways but outside the law.

Waterboarding is torture, as is sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, and rape. All techniques that don't necessarily involve physical pain. That makes them more insidious, since they are more likely applied by people who pretend to be civilized.

Waterboarding is torture, as is sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, and rape. All techniques that don't involve physical pain. That makes them more insidious, since they are more likely applied by people who pretend to be civilized.

How 'bout scaring them with Halloween masks? Is that torture, too? :D

Baron Max

Do they have Baron Max masks?

Waterboarding is torture, as is sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, and rape. All techniques that don't involve physical pain. That makes them more insidious, since they are more likely applied by people who pretend to be civilized.

"Rape doesn't cause pain" now that is a truly stupid, chauvinistic, statement.

Waterboarding is torture, as is sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, and rape. All techniques that don't necessarily involve physical pain. That makes them more insidious, since they are more likely applied by people who pretend to be civilized.

you're butchering the English language, spidergoat.
you meant to say that all these things are "bad" and cause some negative effect on the subject. but they are not all torture.

The UN defines it:

Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person 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.

Anybody want to take a stab at the questions?


So, how many people waterboarded? What happened to them? Were they charged with anything? Where are they now?

buggery was a crime too back then
should we keep it that way?

Yes, if it's imposed in a non-consentual way.

I don't object to waterboarding either if you are dumb enough to get someone to do it to you voluntarily.

I don't object to waterboarding either if you are dumb enough to get someone to do it to you voluntarily.

Geez, Spider, I heard just recently that all of those who were waterboarded specifically volunteered for it. Didn't you hear about that??

Baron Max

Geez, Spider, I heard just recently that all of those who were waterboarded specifically volunteered for it. Didn't you hear about that??

Baron Max

i heard your attempts sarcasm aren't very good

The popular thing to say in defense of waterboarding right now seems to be we can't define it as torture because of a "ticking time bomb situation" where you need to torture to get information as a last defense.

How sickening. Now terrorist TV shows like 24 are setting the tone for our politicians.


For what it's worth, I've had it done to me a few times and while it was extremely unpleasant, it wasn't anything I would call torture. Personally, I think calling something like this "torture" dilutes the term beyond any further usefulness, and would probably make a real torturer giggle.


I'm really skeptical of your comments. For one thing, real waterboarding is done over and over until you give in, yes? Going through a partial experience doesn't equate.

As for a real torturer giggling? The Spanish Inquisition weren't real torturers?

I'm really skeptical of your comments. For one thing, real waterboarding is done over and over until you give in, yes? Going through a partial experience doesn't equate.

As for a real torturer giggling? The Spanish Inquisition weren't real torturers?
What do you mean by "partial experience"? The instances in which I was subjected to it (and some of the other interrogation techniques people are always wringing their hands over) were identical in every aspect to the way these techniques are applied to detainees in a combat theater. My point was that it really wasn't anything worse than extremely uncomfortable, which is what all of these interrogation techniques are.

I think if waterboarding is considered "torture" then it eliminates the word "torture" as being a useful legal term. It might be argued it is illegal because it is cruel and unusual, or extremely unpleasant, or mildly uncomfortable, or just plain old mean, but to compare waterboarding to "real" torture (which can be indescribably horrible) does a serious disservice to anyone who might actually be subjected to full-throttle torture.

Not everyone agrees with you.


"Waterboarding is torture," Daniel Levin was to write. Daniel Levin was no theorist and no protester. He was no troublemaking politician. He was no table-pounding commentator. Daniel Levin was an astonishingly patriotic American and a brave man.


Charged, as you heard in the story from ABC News last Friday, with assessing the relative legality of the various nightmares in the Pandora's box that is the Orwell-worthy euphemism "Enhanced Interrogation," Mr. Levin decided that the simplest, and the most honest, way to evaluate them ... was to have them enacted upon himself.

Daniel Levin took himself to a military base and let himself be waterboarded.

And they waterboarded him. And he wrote that even though he knew those doing it meant him no harm, and he knew they would rescue him at the instant of the slightest distress, and he knew he would not die — still, with all that reassurance, he could not stop the terror screaming from inside of him, could not quell the horror, could not convince that which is at the core of each of us, the entity who exists behind all the embellishments we strap to ourselves, like purpose and name and family and love, he could not convince his being that he wasn't drowning.

Waterboarding, he said, is torture. Legally, it is torture! Practically, it is torture! Ethically, it is torture! And he wrote it down.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21644133/

What do you mean by "partial experience"? The instances in which I was subjected to it (and some of the other interrogation techniques people are always wringing their hands over) were identical in every aspect to the way these techniques are applied to detainees in a combat theater. My point was that it really wasn't anything worse than extremely uncomfortable, which is what all of these interrogation techniques are.

IIRC, the techniques for detainees are to repeat the process until it is successful, so it is hard to imagine how you would of had an identical experience.


I think if waterboarding is considered "torture" then it eliminates the word "torture" as being a useful legal term. It might be argued it is illegal because it is cruel and unusual, or extremely unpleasant, or mildly uncomfortable, or just plain old mean, but to compare waterboarding to "real" torture (which can be indescribably horrible) does a serious disservice to anyone who might actually be subjected to full-throttle torture.

Plain old mean? I kind of doubt your sincerity now. Drowning is a terrible feeling, and is considered the most unpleasant way to die by many.

Just because there are worse tortures out there doesn't mean this doesn't count.

The popular thing to say in defense of waterboarding right now seems to be we can't define it as torture because of a "ticking time bomb situation" where you need to torture to get information as a last defense.

How sickening. Now terrorist TV shows like 24 are setting the tone for our politicians.
Yeah, quite.

IIRC, the techniques for detainees are to repeat the process until it is successful, so it is hard to imagine how you would of had an identical experience.
In one instance, I was playing OPFOR in a field exercise. I was "captured" and interrogated for a few pieces of information that I had been instructed to conceal to the best of my ability.


Plain old mean? I kind of doubt your sincerity now. Drowning is a terrible feeling, and is considered the most unpleasant way to die by many.

Just because there are worse tortures out there doesn't mean this doesn't count.
This entire debate really goes back to what I was getting at with my first post in this thread: the world needs a concrete definition of "torture", or better yet, what exactly is legal and what is not when it comes to interrogation techniques.

I still think that calling things like sleep deprivation, waterboarding, and a cold/hot room "torture" is ridiculous. Seriously, if it were up to some of you the limits of interrogation technique would be:

1) politely ask suspect question
2) if suspect does not respond, ask more politely
3) ?

What do you mean by "partial experience"? The instances in which I was subjected to it (and some of the other interrogation techniques people are always wringing their hands over) were identical in every aspect to the way these techniques are applied to detainees in a combat theater. My point was that it really wasn't anything worse than extremely uncomfortable, which is what all of these interrogation techniques are. How many times,over how many days of sleeplessness, did you lose consciousness, and wake up with the towel over your face?

If you think you can't be broken, mentally and physically, by waterboarding as professional torturers employ it, you are a damn fool. The only question is whether anything useful could be gotten out of you afterwards.

It's torture, it's obviously torture, and the existence of a debate on the matter is as damning an indictment of the current administration and political climate of the United States as anything I can imagine.

Allan Dershowitz argues (and i agree wholeheartedly) that under the right circumstances (e.g. the ticking time bomb) any civilized country will indeed torture despite the grandstanding. so the question should be not whether torture (the real meaning, not waterboarding) should or should not occur, but whether there should be laws outlining the right circumstances when it can legally occur. the alternative is to do it anyways but outside the law. In the first place, none of those circumstances have occurred anywhere at any time yet or are anywhere likely, so the whole discussion is theoretical.

In the second, the necessity of torture in some Hollywood imaginary situation does not mean it has to be legalized, with all the dangers of the law being bent. If the situation comes up, the law can be broken, the world or Angela Jolie saved from the bad guys, and the torturer can face the law and a jury trial honestly.

In the third: The same is true of cannabalism.

Should we have a national debate over the right circumstances under which cannabilism can legally occur?

How many times did you lose consciousness, and wake up with the towel over your face?

If you think you can't be broken, mentally and physically, by waterboarding as professional torturers employ it, you are a damn fool. The only question is whether anything useful could be gotten out of you afterwards.

It's torture, it's obviously torture, and the existence of a debate on the matter is as damning an indictment of the current administration and political climate of the United States as anything I can imagine.
First, I never said anything about not being "broken". Second, I was subjected to it in the same manner "as professional torturers employ it" (as I've said already) so I'm not sure what your point is. Third, I didn't find that it had any effect that compromised my memory, although different people's responses to it would obviously vary a great deal.

Finally, I really don't have an opinion on whether or not waterboarding is by definition torture, because the legal definition of torture is not adequate and trying to use it as a way of determining legality is a complete waste of time. I personally think that if something like waterboarding is included in a revised definition of torture then the term becomes legally meaningless, which is not a good thing. I've said this several times.

Second, I was subjected to it in the same manner "as professional torturers employ it" (as I've said already) so I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that you obvously were not waterbaorded as the CIA - or any other professional torturers - waterboard people. If you had been, or had the common sense god gave a gopher, you would know better than to describe it as being "seriously uncomfortable" but otherwise no big deal.

You're talking like someone who was kept up a couple of nights, and has concluded that sleep deprivation is not really that serious.

Third, I didn't find that it had any effect that compromised my memory, although different people's responses to it would obviously vary a great deal. And its use as torture would obviously have more severe effects.

Typically, the CIA doesn't waterboard people. They have other people do it for them, mostly Egyptians or Jordanians. I know this is largely semantics, but it matters because people like you are running around accusing the US of practicing torture, when in fact, it typically does not. It is enabling torture or condoning it through surrogates, something it has done (in various guises) for decades. However, torture didn't become an issue until this administration took office...

To roughly quote a former intelligence officer, it's interesting the majority of Americans seem to have no problem with the CIA killing terrorists (through predator drone attacks, etc.), but they scoff at the notion of torture. His point, I suppose, is that on some level death is worse than torture. I post this not because I agree with him, but to generate discussion.

As for the usual suspects who seemingly are against any and all forms of intense questioning, I'm curious how they propose we solicit information from uncooperative religious fanatics who are trying to attack and kill as many of us as possible...

Typically, the CIA doesn't waterboard people. They have other people do it for them, mostly Egyptians or Jordanians. The relative frequency with which the CIA outsources, rather than inhouses, their torturing is hardly the point - although one wonders about the justification as an interrogation technique, if the CIA interrogators are not even present.

Atypically, the CIA tortures people fairly frequently.

And it became an issue with this administration because it became open, overt, and publically defended with this administration. This administration is the first ever to publish photographs of "detainees" held in stress positions and otherwise abused, the first to create publically acknowledged prisons designed for the infliction of "intense interrogation" techniques, the first to publically and overtly deny its Geneva Convention obligations with legalisms and political BS, the first to claim the desire, even, let alone the right, to do this to people (and therefore the first to threaten people - including its citizens - with torture).

An older story, but a fairly informative one:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

My point is that you obvously were not waterbaorded as the CIA - or any other professional torturers - waterboard people. If you had been, or had the common sense god gave a gopher, you would know better than to describe it as being "seriously uncomfortable" but otherwise no big deal.
This goes back to what I was saying earlier. If I can come away from it without running in circles screaming ZOMG TORTURE then it isn't categorically terrible, and clearly isn't the sort of technique we should be lumping in with "real" torture.

You're wasting your time arguing with Ice, Echo. His mind has been made up on this issue, as it is on all issues, and it won't change.

My problem with the water boarding is that it seems interested in "confessions" and not actionable intelligence. I could give a shit less that KSM confessed to all those plots, which was patently ridiculous. I want him to give up his collaborators and provide us with detailed information that we can use to capture or kill other fanatics.

This goes back to what I was saying earlier. If I can come away from it without running in circles screaming ZOMG TORTURE then it isn't categorically terrible, and clearly isn't the sort of technique we should be lumping in with "real" torture. You have got to be kidding.

As pointed out, you have never been subjected to waterboarding as torture. If you want to meet some people who have, there is a facility in Minnesota that treats them - you can have a little chat. I would advise you to go easy on the "seriously uncomfortable" line of ignorant BS, especially if you are talking to one of the people who were permanently crippled by the convulsive joint injury, or are still unable to sleep through the night for the recurrent nightmares, or have various problems from the brain damage.

One reason waterboarding is used by torturers, even many who have much more Hollywood-standard dramatic techniques available, is that it "works" better than most of them - it is more effective at breaking the victim than, for example, crushing thumbs in a thumbscrew. That is because it is worse - a more horrible experience, more debilitating and fear-inducing.

One reason it is not used by many actual interrogators is that, like all severe tortures, it corrupts the info gained and eliminates the opportunity of acquiring willing cooperation - you have downgraded the value of your source.

One reason you should not allow your government to employ professional waterboarders is that they are a threat to everyone, which discourages willing cooperation and introduces fear between your government and the "consent of the people".


My problem with the water boarding is that it seems interested in "confessions" and not actionable intelligence. I could give a shit less that KSM confessed to all those plots, which was patently ridiculous. I want him to give up his collaborators and provide us with detailed information that we can use to capture or kill other fanatics. That is of course true of all torture techniques. They are all designed to elicit confession, agreement with the interrogator, psychological and physical disintegration, etc. And the people who employ them presumably know that - so why do you think this administration wants to be able use such techniques on designated "enemy combatants" or "terrorist sympathizers" ?

If it's a war, then those captured are POWs, who we are required to treat with a minimum of humanity and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Otherwise they are criminals, and should be given a fair trial according to US law.

If we kill a suspected terrorist with a missile, it's because they would otherwise escape and hurt us. If we already have them in custody, then they cannot be a threat and mistreatment is merely punishment.

To roughly quote a former intelligence officer, it's interesting the majority of Americans seem to have no problem with the CIA killing terrorists (through predator drone attacks, etc.), but they scoff at the notion of torture. His point, I suppose, is that on some level death is worse than torture. I post this not because I agree with him, but to generate discussion.

No, torture is more of a problem because it involves a slow death, not that death is worse. It's the same reason why if you go hunting deer, any other animal, or even human, you go for the quick kill, not extended.

- N

I was not aware that any of the people "tortured" by the US are slowly killed. In fact, I think the opposite is just the case. So what the hell are you talking about?

I was not aware that any of the people "tortured" by the US are slowly killed. In fact, I think the opposite is just the case. So what the hell are you talking about?

Torture is about prolonging death.

- N

You have got to be kidding.
No. Sorry!


As pointed out, you have never been subjected to waterboarding as torture.
However, I have been subjected to a waterboard on numerous occasions. Ergo, we can logically conclude that it is not a technique that could categorically be considered "torture" by its own right.

What you seem to be arguing here is that it has the capacity to be abused in a torturous manner, perhaps as some sort of cumulative effect. I agree with that, thus my belief that the world needs a revised Convention to clearly delineate such limits so that interrogators who do abuse it can be held legally accountable for their actions.


If it's a war, then those captured are POWs, who we are required to treat with a minimum of humanity and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Otherwise they are criminals, and should be given a fair trial according to US law.
While I share your sentiment, most of the captives aren't actually subject to the Geneva Conventions according to the Geneva Conventions, since they don't meet the criteria laid out in Article 4A. That doesn't make it any less immoral to mistreat them, just that the Geneva Conventions don't consider them prisoners of war as the Geneva Conventions define them. Which is yet another reason why they need to be revised.

The thing is that actionable intelligence was retreated by the use of Water Boarding, that should be apparent in the fact that we have not had a successful attack by the Terrorist in the U.S. since 9-11-01.

The thing is that we will never really know what was recovered KSM, because it is classified, the effect is that we really don't even know if he was water boarded, as that information is classified.

The thing is that actionable intelligence was retreated by the use of Water Boarding, that should be apparent in the fact that we have not had a successful attack by the Terrorist in the U.S. since 9-11-01.

The bear patrol is working great!

However, I have been subjected to a waterboard on numerous occasions. And I have stayed up late on numerous occasions, and taken cold showers. I have been shocked many times - even played with electrical fencing, as a child.

You have not been tortured by waterboarding, any more than I have been tortured by sleep deprivation or hypothermia misery or electroshock.

What you seem to be arguing here is that it has the capacity to be abused in a torturous manner, perhaps as some sort of cumulative effect. No kidding. Just as electroshock, sleep deprivation, and hypothermia can be "abused in a tortuous manner, perhaps as some sort of cumulative effect".

I agree with that, thus my belief that the world needs a revised Convention to clearly delineate such limits so that interrogators who do abuse it can be held legally accountable for their actions. That exists, or did until recently. It is only recently that the US has lobbied for legal permission to use waterboarding and other "stress techniques" - it used to be known as "water torture" - for breakdown of interrogation subjects.

While I share your sentiment, most of the captives aren't actually subject to the Geneva Conventions according to the Geneva Conventions, since they don't meet the criteria laid out in Article 4A. That is false.

To begin with, the procedure for determination of whether someone meets the Geneva criteria is specified in the Conventions, and arbitrary ruling by the US President or some designated official is not it.

According to the Convention, anyone captured in a combat zone is to be treated as a POW until other determination has been made.

No such determination has ever been made for any of the Gitmo detainees.

In the second place, many of the Gitmo detainees quite obviously meet the criteria - anyone captured on a battlefield as a member of an organized military force engaged in combat is a POW.

In the third place, most of the detainees were simply delivered to the US after being captured by others, often for bounty money. So they aren't even necessarily combatants, let alone enemy combatants. At least one is there because his name was confused with that of a known jihadist commander.

They were all severely abused, by stress positions and other techniques, except maybe some of the children. Some were systematically tortured (including the mistaken name). AFAIK none of the detainees released have been found to have been terrorists or jihadists by anyone else - although some have joined jihadist forces after release.

It's arguable that more jihadists have been let out of Gitmo than were put in.

the Geneva Conventions don't consider them prisoners of war as the Geneva Conventions define them. Which is yet another reason why they need to be revised.

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you.

And I have stayed up late on numerous occasions, and taken cold showers. I have been shocked many times - even played with electrical fencing, as a child.

You have not been tortured by waterboarding, any more than I have been tortured by sleep deprivation or hypothermia misery or electroshock.
The best part about your posts is that you don't really read my posts, or anyone else's. You just see that we've posted, scan for basic content, then get really mad and start mashing the keyboard. Read it again, I didn't say I was tortured - in fact I specifically said I was not. I then made the obvious conclusion that simply being subjected to a waterboard wasn't necessarily torture, but agreed that it could be if the interrogator takes it too far. When you scan for content, you have to make sure to catch the important terms that denote actual implicit assertions. Then take time to think about a response, before you hit the reply button.


According to the Convention, anyone captured in a combat zone is to be treated as a POW until other determination has been made.
Some are, some aren't. It all depends on the circumstances of their capture, e.g. if they were armed, if they observed the laws of land warfare, if they were uniformed or not, possessed a form of ID, etc. It isn't nearly as clear-cut as you're making it out to be.

As far as the muj we were bitchslapping around the Ghan in 01-02, very few of those guys adhered to any sort of organization whatsoever, tactically, legally, or otherwise.


The US Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Hamdan has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, here.

Torture is about prolonging death.

- N

No, it's not. As usual, you obviously have no idea what your talking about...

Torture is about prolonging death.

- N

Only if that is your intention from the start, to kill the subject of a interrogation means that you have failed, and that there is no possibility of finding out any more information that may be usable, there are many was of making a subject very uncomfortable with out killing them, that is one of the reasons that water boarding is used, because it doesn't kill the subject of the interrogation.

I once had the privilege of reading a translation of a Soviet KGB Manuel on interrogation techniques, and the one thing that I found interesting was that depending on the health of the individual, different techniques would be used, one of the techniques that wasn't used if a subject had heart problems was sensory deprivation, the Soviet would take a individual that they wanted information from, drug them, then put them in a neopream suit, place them is a salt water solution that made the individual weight less, control the temperature, then bring the individual back to consciousness, the helmet provided absolutely odorless air, and a soft undistinguishable light, neither to bright or to soft, the water was at body temperature, there was no distinguishable sensations, you were trapped in you own mind, there was a feed back circuit so that if you screamed you couldn't hear your self scream, the longest a subject lasted before breaking was about 14 hours, and that was a volunteer who knew what the technique was all about.

The reason it couldn't be used on any one with heart problems was that when they were ready for questioning their heart rate would skyrocket, their blood pressure would go out of control, and they would have a heart attack.

Just imagine the terror that come's from no sensations at all, total isolation, no sensory input at all, neither in pain or pleasure, just in the bowl of your own mind, a sphere of light, with your own thoughts, and nothing else, no up no down, no sound, no warmth, no cold, just your own thoughts, no questioning, just you and your mind.

"Enhanced interrogation techniques" is a Nazi term I believe.

Read it again, I didn't say I was tortured - in fact I specifically said I was not. I then made the obvious conclusion that simply being subjected to a waterboard wasn't necessarily torture, but agreed that it could be if the interrogator takes it too far. And I made the obvious response - nothing is torture unless used as torture. Nevertheless, hanging someone by their thumbs is forbidden to interrogators, application of electroshock is forbidden to interrogators, and so forth. Simply being subjected to electroshock is not necessarily torture - but it's forbidden to interrogators anyway, for completely obvious and well-understood reasons.

Or used to be. God knows what the current bunch has authorized in secret, given what they defend in public and the lack of oversight.

Have I made myself clear?

Some are, some aren't. It all depends on the circumstances of their capture, e.g. if they were armed, if they observed the laws of land warfare, if they were uniformed or not, possessed a form of ID, etc. It isn't nearly as clear-cut as you're making it out to be. Uniform is essentially irrelevant in these circumstances, armed is irrelevant, observance of the laws of land warfare is irrelevant, ID is mostly irrelevant, and so forth.

Anyone captured on a battlefield during combat is a POW until formal determination is made otherwise.

The Geneva Convention is not the slippery mess of judgment calls its violators would have one believe. The whole business of "uniforms", for example - the only significance is that a legitimately uniformed soldier is definitely a soldier, and no "determination" otherwise is allowed. If not in uniform, other factors apply, and formal determination may assign non-POW status to someone if these factors indicate. We have people here claiming that not wearing a uniform removes the protections of Geneva from a captured soldier - that's nonsense. It's nonsense promulgated by specific political factions in the US.

The point is that no one at Gitmo has been treated as a POW. No one. And not one has received the formal hearing and determination that Geneva requires for non-POW status assignation of those captured in combat.

And the abuse inflicted upon the detainees at Gitmo is and was torture. Gitmo is and has been a torture prison from its construction. The US is now one of the countries of the world that maintains torture prisons.

Buffalo Roam:


The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 accords POW status only to enemy forces who follow certain rules: wear uniforms; do not deliberately target civilians; and otherwise fight in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

As a matter of international law, I believe you are wrong. The International Court of Justice has ruled on a number of occasions that the Geneva conventions apply to all POWs. The artificial distinctions you raise, based on wearing uniforms and so on, may have existed in 1949, but international law has moved on since then so that crimes against humanity (including torture of POWs) may now be prosecuted regardless of whether the victims are soldiers, civilians or terror suspects.


Additionally al Qaida is not a party to the Geneva Convention and has no right under international law to wage war

It does not matter, since crimes against humanity no longer require that a state be the victim.


Nothing in the Geneva Convention provides POWs such rights and POWs in past wars have not generally been given these rights.

The Geneva conventions are somewhat restrictive, certainly, though probably not to the extent you imagine. But aside from them, international law now has a well developed body of precedent and treaties which go well beyond the Geneva Conventions. For example, there is a specific international convention on torture that operates quite independently of the Geneva Conventions.

Torture is about prolonging death.

No, it's not. As usual, you obviously have no idea what your talking about...

No, you don't. Yeah, I used the wrong phrasing for that one post (I should have said prolonging the feeling of death without dying, etc), but my original point remains in which you disagreed with about what's worse, death or torture.

The whole freakin' point of torture is to cause the worst pain or fear possible without killing someone so they break and spill the beans, which is why we use torture in the first place rather than pelting detainees with daisies and tulips. And well, the only thing worst than death itself is a prolonged death, slowly killing someone or thing (ie: shoot a deer as many times as possible instead of a clean, quick kill), which is why we have so many different types of "humane" rules, laws, groups, and whatnot. Torture would be the next thing down from that list, since it's the same thing as with the deer, except we don't want the prisoner to die, but they go through the same scenario as that deer which is lots of suffering. It's the whole reason why torture was even invented in the first place, duh, so STFU with your lack of basic logical comprehension.

That's why I disagreed when you said: "To roughly quote a former intelligence officer, it's interesting the majority of Americans seem to have no problem with the CIA killing terrorists (through predator drone attacks, etc.), but they scoff at the notion of torture. His point, I suppose, is that on some level death is worse than torture. I post this not because I agree with him, but to generate discussion.".

So how can people have no problem with death, but make a huge deal over torture? Maybe, uh, because people find torture worse than death, otherwise there would be no complaints. So my post was addressing why people would find torture worse than death, you know, to cause the ruckus that we're hearing in the first place, but I didn't realize I'd have to spell it out, since it's plainly obvious to me anyways as to why. It's also the reason why, other than people wanting to save money on taxes paid for prisons, they'd rather some person who did a bad crime rot in jail and get his ass kicked or raped for his lengthly detention, to cause prolonged pain to the prisoner as most people find death to be the easy way out. That's why people find torture worse than death, as opposed to your thinking that it's the other way around.


The thing is that actionable intelligence was retreated by the use of Water Boarding, that should be apparent in the fact that we have not had a successful attack by the Terrorist in the U.S. since 9-11-01.

Bullshit, torture had nothing to do with that. How much torturing went on after the first WTC bombing yet we had no attacks on our homeland since 2001. That didn't stop overseas attacks then, nor now, even though our homeland was kept safe from international terrorists (not internal ones).

- N

And I made the obvious response - nothing is torture unless used as torture. Nevertheless, hanging someone by their thumbs is forbidden to interrogators, application of electroshock is forbidden to interrogators, and so forth. Simply being subjected to electroshock is not necessarily torture - but it's forbidden to interrogators anyway, for completely obvious and well-understood reasons.

Or used to be. God knows what the current bunch has authorized in secret, given what they defend in public and the lack of oversight.

Have I made myself clear?
Uniform is essentially irrelevant in these circumstances, armed is irrelevant, observance of the laws of land warfare is irrelevant, ID is mostly irrelevant, and so forth.

Anyone captured on a battlefield during combat is a POW until formal determination is made otherwise.

The Geneva Convention is not the slippery mess of judgment calls its violators would have one believe. The whole business of "uniforms", for example - the only significance is that a legitimately uniformed soldier is definitely a soldier, and no "determination" otherwise is allowed. If not in uniform, other factors apply, and formal determination may assign non-POW status to someone if these factors indicate. We have people here claiming that not wearing a uniform removes the protections of Geneva from a captured soldier - that's nonsense. It's nonsense promulgated by specific political factions in the US.

The point is that no one at Gitmo has been treated as a POW. No one. And not one has received the formal hearing and determination that Geneva requires for non-POW status assignation of those captured in combat.

And the abuse inflicted upon the detainees at Gitmo is and was torture. Gitmo is and has been a torture prison from its construction. The US is now one of the countries of the world that maintains torture prisons.

Sorry to inform you but all of the detainees at GITMO have been given their hearings, and have been judge either, to be POWs or illegal combatants, some have been released, some have been turned over to their countries of origin, and some are being held as POWs, and some have been judged to be illegal combatants, the Congress has authorized the Tribunals as a regularly constituted legal proceeding, with full authority to make judgments and impose findings of fact.

It seems that some very heavy legal minds concur with my assessment of the situation.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm1556.cfm#_ftnref10

July 13, 2007
Dispelling Misconceptions: Guantanamo Bay Detainee Procedures Exceed the Requirements of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Law, and Customary International Law
by Steven Groves and Brian Walsh
WebMemo #1556



Steven Groves is Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, and Brian W. Walsh is Senior Legal Research Fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.

Sorry to inform you but all of the detainees at GITMO have been given their hearings You miss the point: they have to be treated as POWs first, before the hearings, to meet the Geneva Conventions. Those are not Geneva - satisfying hearings, because they are years too late and fail to make the appropriate determinations of status. (What the hell is an "enemy combatant", and why does the US think such a made up label frees it of its legal, treaty-bound obligation to treat prisoners of war decently? )

It's too late. You can't go back and retroactively unabuse and untorture the innocent and those found to be not so bad after all - the vast majority of detainees at Gitmo.

You could, of course, begin proceedings agaisnt those responsible for so damaging the reputation and standing of the US, by violating treaties and prisoners in contravention of US law and ordinary principles of decency, that our national security is threatened not only by motivation of our enemies but by discouragement of our friends.

Uniform is essentially irrelevant in these circumstances, armed is irrelevant, observance of the laws of land warfare is irrelevant, ID is mostly irrelevant, and so forth.

Anyone captured on a battlefield during combat is a POW until formal determination is made otherwise.
No, not anyone. The circumstances of capture can instantaneously decide the detainee's status in certain cases. If there is a question as to whether or not an individual is entitled to protections, then they are entitled to review by a competent tribunal as soon as possible. In other cases, there are certain things an enemy can do to automatically decide his or her status:


74. Necessity of Uniform

Members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict and members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces lose their right to be treated as prisoners of war whenever they deliberately conceal their status in order to pass behind the military lines of the enemy for the purpose of gathering military information or for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property. Putting on civilian clothes or the uniform of the enemy are examples of concealment of the status of a member of the armed forces.


80. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Engage in Hostilities

Persons, such as guerrillas and partisans, who take up arms and commit hostile acts without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), are, when captured by the injured party, not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment.


81. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts

Persons who, without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), commit hostile acts about or behind the lines of the enemy are not to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment. Such acts include, but are not limited to, sabotage, destruction of communications facilities, intentional misleading of troops by guides, liberation of prisoners of war, and other acts not falling within Articles 104 and 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Article 29 of the Hague Regulations.

FM 27-10 Ch. 3 - Laws of Land Warfare (http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/Ch3.htm#p61)

No, not anyone. The circumstances of capture can instantaneously decide the detainee's status in certain cases. If there is a question as to whether or not an individual is entitled to protections, then they are entitled to review by a competent tribunal as soon as possible. In other cases, there are certain things an enemy can do to automatically decide his or her status: Nothing in there outranks the Geneva Conventions.

And the relevance to the people in Gitmo, or any other such combatant, captured on a battlefield during combat, is what, exactly?

And note: all of them end in the same way - the captured non-POW may be "tried and sentenced". Note: "tried". No one put into Gitmo was tried.

We repeat the obvious: no one in Gitmo was treated as a POW. That contravenes Geneva.

If some few were spies or whatnot, not captured in combat on a battlefield but elsewhere dressed to hide and spy, they could have been tried and shot, or tried and put into legitimate prisons for interrogation under the laws of the US or the country in which they were imprisoned. That did not happen either.

The people in Gitmo were, mostly: captured under unknown circumstances by Northern Alliance and related militia, handed to the US for bounty payments, sent to Gitmo without hearing, assigned a bogus and invented status as a group without individual consideration or hearing, abused throughout the capture and transport, and tortured at Gitmo.

There is no squaring that with US or International law.

buggery was a crime back then. it is'nt anymore

Nothing in there outranks the Geneva Conventions.
The Laws of Land Warfare are basically a Cliff's Notes of the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_land_warfare


And the relevance to the people in Gitmo, or any other such combatant, captured on a battlefield during combat, is what, exactly?
Usually, none. Which is my point. The Geneva Conventions very specifically apply only to individuals who follow a certain mode of behavior in warfighting. A wide, wide majority of the ragtag bad guys we were fighting in the early days of OEF did not, and as such are not legally protected by the Geneva Conventions according to the Geneva Conventions.

The Geneva Conventions very specifically apply only to individuals who follow a certain mode of behavior in warfighting. A wide, wide majority of the ragtag bad guys we were fighting in the early days of OEF did not, and as such are not legally protected by the Geneva Conventions according to the Geneva Conventions. The actual Geneva Conventions, as opposed to the Cliff Notes version, make plenty of provision and specific reference for the kinds of armies we were fighting against - guerrillas, tribal militia, etc, which were essentially indistinguishable from the armies we were fighting with - in Afghanistan, for example.

Who are you talking about, behaving in ways that somehow "automatically" absolves the US of its obligations under Geneva ? What behavior, and which obligations ?

Even according to the Cliff Notes there, you must at least try anyone you sentence.

And since the US did not even capture most of the detainees at Gitmo (and so is ignorant of the circumstances of their capture), incarcerated many soldiers of the Taliban military captured during combat in Gitmo (standard issue POWs), abused all detainees at Gitmo, and tortured many, clearly no appeal to technicalities of Geneva is going to rescue the situation.

No provision of Geneva allows torture of anyone.

Ice, why are you so passionate about this issue?

You don't think torture is a worthwhile issue?

What I think is irrelevant to the question I asked (I've expressed my opinion on this issue in this thread). Ice continues to foam about this, and I'm curious why that is. He's more than happy to contextualize such acts in other circumstances, yet here on this topic, he denies context and becomes morally rigid.

Perhaps we don't want our nation to be party to such crimes.

What I think is irrelevant to the question I asked (I've expressed my opinion on this issue in this thread). Ice continues to foam about this, and I'm curious why that is. He's more than happy to contextualize such acts in other circumstances, yet here on this topic, he denies context and becomes morally rigid.

the question is, is his position correct?

That's what we're discussing here. But establishing a person's motives or the antecedants that led to their postion can be illuminating in any debate. Ice seems passionate about this. All I want to know is why. There's nothing sinister in my asking that...

Compassion? Humanity? I'm not surprised this is a mystery to some people.

Ice, why are you so passionate about this issue?

"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out." - Friedrich Gustav Martin Niemöller

- N

I think he's a big boy and can speak up for himself.

I think he's a big boy and can speak up for himself.

But he's not the only one who feels as he does.

Thanks.

- N

I think he's a big boy and can speak up for himself.

i agree.
one should be able to pose any question
it is why we come here
unfortunately, questioning ones motives usually occur when one disagrees with the proposition being offered

"usually" being the operative term

Who are you talking about, behaving in ways that somehow "automatically" absolves the US of its obligations under Geneva ? What behavior, and which obligations ?
I've already posted a few examples.


Even according to the Cliff Notes there, you must at least try anyone you sentence.
No, it says that these illegal combatants may be tried. Not that their status as an EPW must be confirmed or denied by the competent military tribunal that "legitimate" (for lack of a better term) combatants are entitled to under the Geneva Conventions. Paraphrased, it says "if the enemy behaves this way, they've forfeited their protections, do what you want with them".


And since the US did not even capture most of the detainees at Gitmo (and so is ignorant of the circumstances of their capture), incarcerated many soldiers of the Taliban military captured during combat in Gitmo (standard issue POWs), abused all detainees at Gitmo, and tortured many, clearly no appeal to technicalities of Geneva is going to rescue the situation.
Taliban militants are not afforded protections, either, as they are not fighting on the behalf of a legitimate government (only Pakistan recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan after 9/11). They are covered under paragraph 80, quoted above, as partisans.


No provision of Geneva allows torture of anyone.
I know dude. I'm not saying there is one, and I'm not saying I think it is morally solvent to hold these people without trial or subject them to some of the things they've been subjected to. For what it's worth I think the way the US has handled most of them is embarassing. What I am saying is that the treaties and laws that are supposed to be protecting these people are so woefully obsolete when it comes to dealing with today's threat climate that the world needs to sit down, give them an honest look, and update them. We need to resolve the ambiguities and convenient loopholes that have led directly to the abhorrent conditions at GTMO and abuse incidents at places like Bagram AB and Abu Ghraib prison.

I've already posted a few examples. Not here. Where?

No, it says that these illegal combatants may be tried. Not that their status as an EPW must be confirmed or denied by the competent military tribunal that "legitimate" (for lack of a better term) combatants are entitled to under the Geneva Conventions. Paraphrased, it says "if the enemy behaves this way, they've forfeited their protections, do what you want with them". It specifies what you may do with them - try them and shoot them, instead of treating them as POWs (who cannot be tried and shot). It does not give you permission to do "whatever you want". You may not, for example, simply shoot them without trial, nor may you subject them to what was known at the time of Geneva as "water torture".


Taliban militants are not afforded protections, either, as they are not fighting on the behalf of a legitimate government (only Pakistan recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan after 9/11). They are covered under paragraph 80, quoted above, as partisans. The actual Conventions deal clearly with such organised forces as the Taliban, who had bases and command structure and identifiable authority. There is no requirement that they represent a "legitimate state" - especially, there is no requirement that they represent a state recognised as legitimate by an invading army - doesn't that strike you as bit ridiculous, as claims go?

i agree.
one should be able to pose any question
it is why we come here
unfortunately, questioning ones motives usually occur when one disagrees with the proposition being offered

"usually" being the operative term

I've stated I'm not in favor of torture, but I think my reasons are different than Ice's. In addition to his moral points, he seems to settle on legal grounds, which are shaky. Regardless, his passion is obvious.

I don't think his points are shakey at all :)

Like the Bush administrations claims to the contrary, his points are based entirely on how one reads obscure (and largely obsolete) points of law. One can have these sort of legal arguments forever and ever, which is why my objection is more practical. There are some cases I would approve of torture, but in most, I would not. The problem is the argument has become polarized into two absolutes, when in fact, I think it's a pretty nuanced topic.

There are some cases I would approve of torture, but in most, I would not. The problem is the argument has become polarized into two absolutes, when in fact, I think it's a pretty nuanced topic.

of course it is
i'd slice and dice to get a loved one back and still hold on to the condemnation of torture. that really aint rocket science

Like the Bush administrations claims to the contrary, his points are based entirely on how one reads obscure (and largely obsolete) points of law. Gonzalez term was "quaint". Apparently, with "quaint" treaties, being signatory to them is not all that important.

He also found that the Constitution did not really, as it appeared, guarantee an American citizen the right of habeus corpus.

Gonzalez approach to the Constitution, treaty, law, and Presidential powers, is the one now guiding the Federal administration of the United States.

it is a measure of the bush admin's frikkin incompetence that this shit has to be an issue.

back in the goddamn day we used to torture in a goddamned civilized manner

/cackle

there was no mass torture of inmates, nor were we abducting people willy nilly and flying them around the world to be tortured.

the only crime here is stupidity.

Again, I'm not for torture, but I can't help but think that the only "crime" was getting caught...

Again: if you criticize waterboarding, you will only make more waterboarders.

It would be better just to open up a dialogue with waterboarders and get them involved in the social process. It is a statistical fact that most CIA agents are peaceable people, being nice to their neighbours and just wanting to raise their kids and live their lives and play footy or watch cricket. Many of them are deeply spiritual people. After all, it's not like you see all CIA agents running around waterboarding people, is it? It's only a tiny minority that are the problem.

'US called Waterboarding a crime in 1947'

Yeah, well we all know the US government are hypocrites.

Other governments, of course, are entirely truthful and honest.

Not here. Where?
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1624463&postcount=68


It specifies what you may do with them - try them and shoot them, instead of treating them as POWs (who cannot be tried and shot). It does not give you permission to do "whatever you want". You may not, for example, simply shoot them without trial, nor may you subject them to what was known at the time of Geneva as "water torture".
I can't even tell what point you're clumsily trying to dance around. The fact is, a finding of EPW status by a competent tribunal is not the universal requirement that you previously asserted it was. I'll be curious to see if you try to argue this again.


The actual Conventions deal clearly with such organised forces as the Taliban, who had bases and command structure and identifiable authority. There is no requirement that they represent a "legitimate state" - especially, there is no requirement that they represent a state recognised as legitimate by an invading army - doesn't that strike you as bit ridiculous, as claims go?
No, not really. Taliban militants engaging in hostilities while ignoring the laundry list of conditions a lawful combatant must meet could have been Oompa Loompas or the New Zealand All Blacks and it wouldn't have made any legal difference. Because many of them did not adhere to any of the conditions necessary to accord them protections as EPWs when captured, no such protections were granted.

One can have these sort of legal arguments forever and ever, which is why my objection is more practical.

that's a cop out
this is sci
we fix things

Not here. Where? ”

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=...3&postcount=68 Those are quotes from the Cliff Notes version of the relevant law, not examples of anyone behaving in any way at all.

I can't even tell what point you're clumsily trying to dance around. That you misread or misrepresented the law you quoted, which was not the law under discussion anyway.

The fact is, a finding of EPW status by a competent tribunal is not the universal requirement that you previously asserted it was. I'll be curious to see if you try to argue this again. My assertion was that people captured in combat on a battlefield are entitled to treatment as POWs until other determination has been made, formally. Nothing you posted has countered that.

My later observation was that people captured as spies or "partisans", not in combat on a battlefield, (according to what you posted as the law you seemed to think justified non-POW treatment for Taliban captures), are entitled to a trial before sentence. No Gitmo detainee got a trial.

One implication all along has been that some detainees at Gitmo had been captured in combat on a battlefield. I am not sure about that. I would be taking the word of the representatives of the current administration, and that is no way to build up an accurate view of things.

No, not really. Taliban militants engaging in hostilities while ignoring the laundry list of conditions a lawful combatant must meet could have been Oompa Loompas or the New Zealand All Blacks and it wouldn't have made any legal difference. Because many of them did not adhere to any of the conditions necessary to accord them protections as EPWs when captured, no such protections were granted. So far you have posted no evidence or argument for that. You seem to believe, for example, that not wearing uniforms or not belonging to the army of a recognised state is failure to meet the requirements of Geneva for POW status, which is false.

You also seem to think that not qualifying for POW status removes all Geneva protections, and that a country signatory to Geneva can allow its official armed forces to do "whatever we want" with non-POWs. That too is false.

You also have overlooked the main point, which was that none of the detainees at Gitmo were treated as Geneva requires fro battlefield captures, so simply arguing that "many" of them did not deserve to be does not cover the issue, even if such argument carries (which it hasn't, yet).

Additionally, the observation that the majority of the detainees were not captured by US forces, but rather turned over for bounty money by tribesmen, tends to invalidate any argument based on the circumstances of their capture, eh? Since the people administering the abuse and torture and denying the protections of Geneva did not know what the capture circumstances were - - - .

So far you have posted no evidence or argument for that. You seem to believe, for example, that not wearing uniforms or not belonging to the army of a recognised state is failure to meet the requirements of Geneva for POW status, which is false.
lol

74. Necessity of Uniform

Members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict and members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces lose their right to be treated as prisoners of war whenever they deliberately conceal their status in order to pass behind the military lines of the enemy for the purpose of gathering military information or for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property. Putting on civilian clothes or the uniform of the enemy are examples of concealment of the status of a member of the armed forces.

80. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Engage in Hostilities

Persons, such as guerrillas and partisans, who take up arms and commit hostile acts without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), are, when captured by the injured party, not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment. ”


81. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts

Persons who, without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), commit hostile acts about or behind the lines of the enemy are not to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment. Such acts include, but are not limited to, sabotage, destruction of communications facilities, intentional misleading of troops by guides, liberation of prisoners of war, and other acts not falling within Articles 104 and 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Article 29 of the Hague Regulations.

lol So I did not misunderstand, and you actually do believe that - apparently misreading even the Cliff Notes version of Geneva.

I refer you to the original documents, and a more careful reading about the uniforms etc.

But in the meantime, we can proceed with what you have so conveniently posted. For example:

Persons, such as guerrillas and partisans, who take up arms and commit hostile acts without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), are, when captured by the injured party, not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment. ” The bolded part is common throughout, so one example suffices. It describes what is permitted in case of denial of POW status.

None of the detainees at Gitmo was tried and sentenced. All were abused, some were tortured, many were innocent.

Geneva, even in the Cliff Notes version as misread by you, does not permit either the capturing party or the "injured party" (in such cases as Afghanistan where they don't even speak the same language) to "do whatever it wants".

We note that had such trials taken place, a considerable reduction in the number of complete innocents detained, abused, and tortured at Gitmo might have been made. The Geneva Conventions were the product of long experience of warfare and sophisticated understanding of the real circumstances of combat, and the penalties for violating them are not legal and arbitrary only.

Meanwhile: do we have agreement - do I read you correctly - that at least some of the detainees (the remainder besides the "many" that you hold to be automatically "partisans" without a hearing) were deserving of POW status even under the misread Cliff Notes ?

Because none were granted it.

And, not to lose sight of the OP - none were legitimate subjects of torture, nor is torture (such as "water torture" as it was termed) permitted to its signatories, under any circumstances, by Geneva ?

None of the detainees at Gitmo was tried and sentenced. All were abused, some were tortured, many were innocent.

Anc you provide specifics, please? I tend to view absolute statements such as "all were abused" with some skepticism. I'm also curious what constitutes abuse, per your reckoning. And how many were tortured? How many were innocent?

Anc you provide specifics, please? I tend to view absolute statements such as "all were abused" with some skepticism. The illegal detainment under harsh circumstances in a foreign country for many years is abuse, of course.

But beyond that, you may recall the photographs of the first wave of detainees, published on the front pages of newspapers across the country, showing them being held in ranks in a shackled and painful stress position, blindfolded, in the full sun of a hot day in Cuba, for hours without water (according to the descriptions and captions), while armed guards walked the ranks and "corrected" any who attempted to ease themselves.

That was a slipup, and after the public reactions no more such photographs were permitted as I recall.

And in truth many detainees have described the abuse received from their captors (other Afghanis not in uniform and soldiers of no state), as worse than their treatment by the Americans at Gitmo. The ones who fried in the trucks left in the sun in Afghanistan no doubt would have agreed, had they survived.

The point here being merely that Geneva does not permit this sort of thing in war, and where international treaty leaves off the laws of the United States take over. Water torture was simply not permitted, and anyone who did it had to keep it secret - - - - until recently.

So you consider stress positions to be torture?


The point here being merely that Geneva does not permit this sort of thing in war, and where international treaty leaves off the laws of the United States take over. Water torture was simply not permitted, and anyone who did it had to keep it secret - - - - until recently.

You've made an extremely legal argument throughout, so I feel bound to ask, is the US legally at war? I'm not sure declarations of force of are the same thing as declarations of war, and in the case of terrorists, how can one be at war against stateless people operating in a state we haven't declared war against?

So you consider stress positions to be torture? When, in the inimitable phrase of our legalistic poster here, "used in a tortuous way", of course.

But I mentioned the photos of them in response to your request for evidence of universal "abuse", not torture.

You've made an extremely legal argument throughout, Actually, I have been posting against legalistic and hairsplitting arguments of the letter, justifying gross violations of human rights and betrayals of American character as well as the spirit of American law.

Unless you think the establishment of Gitmo and the treatment of the detainees there is well within the spirit of Geneva philosophy and American character, and only objectionable for violating some nitpicking letter of an obscure law ?

It is others, for example, not me, who are trying to find some wrinkle in a legal definition of "torture" that would permit waterboarding, stress positions, prolonged isolation, extreme temperature and noise regimes, etc.

So I did not misunderstand, and you actually do believe that - apparently misreading even the Cliff Notes version of Geneva.
I'm not misreading anything. You're just refusing to process the information presented to you. The paragraphs I quoted very clearly delineate several instances in which a combatant would not be considered an EPW by any measure.

Also, there is no requirement to subject a detainee who is not an EPW to a trial. Period. The operative word in the paragraphs you keep focusing on is may. "They may be tried and exucuted" doesn't mandate a trial by any stretch.

Rather than glibly accusing others of misreading things, I suggest you examine your own parsing deficiencies. Because all throughout this thread you have been swinging for the fences and missing in a most embarassing manner.

I'm not misreading anything. You're just refusing to process the information presented to you. The paragraphs I quoted very clearly delineate several instances in which a combatant would not be considered an EPW by any measure. They delineate Cliff Notes versions of of Geneva categories of captured people that could be declared non-POWs on the spot.

None of which you have shown to be relevant to the situation being discussed. Examples showing such relevance were requested.

And all of which specify the treatment permitted to someone of non-POW status, namely trial and sentence.

So failure to try and sentence would be a violation of Geneva, in the case of any examples you might present in the future that fall into those categories. Agreed ?


Also, there is no requirement to subject a detainee who is not an EPW to a trial. Period. The stuff you posted clearly states otherwise, several times. I bolded the phrase for you.

There remains the main point of this tangent, which was that none of the detainees at Gitmo were treated as POWs. None of them. Claiming that "many" did not deserve to be, even with evidence and argument (not yet supplied), does not deal with that.

And the relevant point to the OP, that all were abused and many tortured (at a time when waterboarding had not yet hit the public screen as something Americans were doing to prisoners), is not even waved at.

Sorry dude, but like I've told you before: if you're not going to read for content or post sourced counterarguments of your own, there is really no point in continuing this discussion.

Sorry dude, but like I've told you before: if you're not going to read for content or post sourced counterarguments of your own I found your sources perfectly adequate for my arguments,

none of which you have addressed, making "counter" arguments superfluous.

btw:
Also, there is no requirement to subject a detainee who is not an EPW to a trial. Period. The operative word in the paragraphs you keep focusing on is may. "They may be tried and exucuted" doesn't mandate a trial by any stretch. ? Of course it does. The "operative word may" gives the captor permission to not treat them as POWs. If they are not deserving of POW status, they may be tried and sentenced - even shot - as spies or criminals. You may not try and shoot POWs. You may try and shoot spies and sabateurs and the like.

Under no circumstances may anyone be tortured, imprisoned and abused without trial or sentence, etc. Geneva does not permit any signatory government to waterboard anyone, construct torture facilities, etc. Gitmo has been in violation of Geneva since its construction.

Uh no. "detainees may be tried and executed" != "detainees must be tried and executed".

The rest of your post is a strawman.

Uh no. "detainees may be tried and executed" != "detainees must be tried and executed". But that's not the claim. Hello ?

The claim is that "detainees may be tried and executed" replaces "detainees must be treated as POWs until formal determination of status has been made". That is the plain langauge of even the Cliff Note's version.

You don't have to treat them as POWs. You may, instead, under certain conditions, try and sentence them on the spot as spies or saboteurs or whatever you think they are - if you want to. Or you can treat them as POWs - that's OK too.

The point is that nowhere does any phrase resembling "detainees may be treated any way the capturing forces want to treat them" appear in Geneva, nor is such a twisted, legalistic reading of the plain language at all in the spirit of Geneva (or any subsequent treaties and laws pertaining, international or domestic).

And so far, in this discussion, no example or connection of any of this to any of the detainees at Gitmo has been presented. None of them - not one - was treated as a POW. Nor were any of them tried and sentenced.

At some point, an observer becomes entitled to speculate on the motives of people who put so much effort into establishing this kind of misconception. A part of the law that allows soldiers to take obvious spies and saboteurs out back, give them a ten minute kangaroo trial establishing the fact that they were concealing their identities, and shoot them,

has been carefully misrepresented to justify taking combatants in an organized army - or at least militia - opposing an invading force, captured while openly bearing arms on a battlefield in their own country, and abuse them in ways not allowed to signatories of any international treaty or civilized code of behavior known. Because they were not wearing suitably impressive uniforms ? Please.


The rest of your post is a strawman. The rest of the post contains the relevance of the whole Geneva discussion to the OP of the thread.