THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Okay what would I do? (I do not think asking a question is an answer to a question.)

If I was in charge of interrogating a hostile prisoner who might have information that could save hundreds or thousands of American lives, I would not inflict pain or mutilation or put his life or health in danger.

I would have no reservations whatsoever to otherwise subject him to sleep deprivation, unpleasant noise, the world's most boring diet, intimidation, abject terror or whatever it took to convince him it was better to talk than to remain silent. When the choice has to be compassion for the guilty or the innocent, to me it is no contest.

Now there are some who suggest that what I would do is 'torture'. I don't believe it is.

That's where I think the debate should be.

0 Replies

Add some meat to the discussion instead of determining 'what hurts more' ... a stick up your ass or a large dog chewing on your leg while you have your hands and feet tied. I wonder more about:

Were the hoods govmt issue or did the boys bring them over with them?

Did the boys recieve their training on Muslim taboos like open sex, nakedness etc., in an adult vocation class, a little torture basics 101, or did a superior provide the training?

Are there really areas of a prison that are off limits to officers, but accessible to the lowest ranked troop? How does one conceal a pile of naked hooded Iraqis.

Pain is a part of torture ..... HELLO
To argue the degree of pain is ludicrous.
Finding those responcible is essential.

0 Replies

Cool.

Quote:

When the choice has to be compassion for the guilty or the innocent, to me it is no contest.

What if you don't know they are guilty? Are all enemy combatants guilty until proven innocent? Is it okay to do the things you said to innocent people?

We know for a fact that psychological torture can be as damaging as physical torture. Therefore I would strike 'abject terror' from the list, as it seems to be a little shaky.

Given the fact that there are several (over a dozen) unexplained deaths in American jails in Iraq, I would think that there has been some serious abuses going on.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Cool.

Quote:
When the choice has to be compassion for the guilty or the innocent, to me it is no contest.

What if you don't know they are guilty? Are all enemy combatants guilty until proven innocent? Is it okay to do the things you said to innocent people?

We know for a fact that psychological torture can be as damaging as physical torture. Therefore I would strike 'abject terror' from the list, as it seems to be a little shaky.

Given the fact that there are several (over a dozen) unexplained deaths in American jails in Iraq, I would think that there has been some serious abuses going on.

Cycloptichorn

You would think that, but you can't prove that, or are the soldiers all guilty until proven innocent?

0 Replies

He might not be able to, but I can.

0 Replies

And that is a different debate Cyclop. And there is also no disagreement that unexplained injuries and deaths of prisoners should be investigated and any crimes committed be punished.

You guys are all preaching to the choir. NOBODY is disagreeing with you on that.

The issue is now to define what IS and WHAT IS NOT torture.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

He might not be able to, but I can.

Show me your power, Craven.

0 Replies

Cyclop writes:

Quote:

What if you don't know they are guilty? Are all enemy combatants guilty until proven innocent? Is it okay to do the things you said to innocent people?

Innocent people tell what they know, cooperate as much as they can. I can't imagine anything more than questioning would be necessary.

So I'll ask you a question in return. What if they were caught red handed with a bomb in their shorts and admitted to being Al Qaida?

0 Replies

The wheel, constantly in need of reinvention, pulls up flat at our door.

Much thought and many fine minds have already been put to the task of defining torture.

Perhaps turning there might be a more profitable exercise than listing off Joe's ideas and Sally's ideas. Unless you wish to do that first, then go check on what others have done...that's a strategy often used by teachers.

0 Replies

Tell me Blatham, what is the difference between tortue and abuse and when does one stop and become the other?

0 Replies

Itis strange to me that is agreed to be okay, in secret, behind closed doors, no debate and signed off on - it shows up in multiple places; then, hands are thrown up, aghast is shown and "not on my watch" is exclaimed from the four corners after the story unravels and is investigated by those that made decision behind closed doors, in secret with no debate and signed off on it.......

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
He might not be able to, but I can.

Show me your power, Craven.

McG, you too have the power within you.

1) The claim: "there has been some serious abuses going on".

2) The evidence: a) several soldiers have admitted to it b) substantial documentation exists (let me know if you'd like leads) c) The US military itself has said as much d) The US military itself has levelled the accusation of homicide.

3) Methodology: a) "serious" is the only issue in question, that abuse occured is pretty much understood by all sides b) some of the abuse resulted in death that the military itself rules unwarranted homicde, the expectation that death is an acceptable "serious" result of abuse is incorporated.

0 Replies

All the abuses that have been brought to light thus far occured at Abu Ghraib prison by 6 or 7 individuals. This does not justify an epidemic, nor does it mean that every prison guard is guilty of torture.

Cycloptichorn said "Given the fact that there are several (over a dozen) unexplained deaths in American jails in Iraq, I would think that there has been some serious abuses going on."

which implies a widespread, planned, coordinated plan of torture and abuse. That simply can't be proven by the facts we have. Those responsible have been identified and are being dealt with.

0 Replies

It is strange to me that is agreed to be okay, in secret, behind closed doors, no debate and signed off on - it shows up in multiple places; then, hands are thrown up, aghast is shown and "not on my watch" is exclaimed from the four corners after the story unravels and is investigated by those that made decision behind closed doors, in secret with no debate and signed off on it.......

0 Replies

That's bullsh*t McG.

Either:

1:There are a few soldiers who were consistently and systematically fooling the upper command in Iraq into believing that these abuses were not going on, or,

2:There are a few soldiers in Iraq who are taking the fall for the higher-ups.

On one hand, you have our government leaving our soldiers (who conservatives can't stop talking about how much they support) out to dry, and on the other hand, you have a military leadership in Iraq that can be fooled by its subordinates and shows gross incompetence.

You pick.

Quote:

which implies a widespread, planned, coordinated plan of torture and abuse. That simply can't be proven by the facts we have. Those responsible have been identified and are being dealt with.

Perhaps that's what YOU think I was implying. I didn't say anything of the sort. Quit putting words in my mouth, please.

A much more accurate situation would probably be the upper management turning a blind eye to abuses that they know are going on.

It's odd to me that the only one blaming the soldiers for the abuses are GW and his supporters. The soldiers themselves said they were following orders. You calling them liars?

Please actually attempt to address my points.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

All the abuses that have been brought to light thus far occured at Abu Ghraib prison by 6 or 7 individuals.

Incorrect. I believe you meant to say:

"All the abuses that I am personally aware of occured at at Abu Ghraib prison by 6 or 7 individuals."

A cursory reading of the US military's own investigations would dispell this notion.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

(I do not think asking a question is an answer to a question.)

If that was directed at me, my answer was in here.

Foxfyre wrote:

Cyclop writes:

Quote:
What if you don't know they are guilty? Are all enemy combatants guilty until proven innocent? Is it okay to do the things you said to innocent people?

Innocent people tell what they know, cooperate as much as they can. I can't imagine anything more than questioning would be necessary.

Yup. So there you are, a YIM (Young Iraqi Male), innocent (or perhaps guilty of throwing stones, or perhaps even of taking a potshot at a GI) - and apprehended by Coalition soldiers. You're dragged to Abu G., and interrogated. You tell 'em all you know, which isnt much, cause its not like you're entangled in some sinister Al-Qaeda cell. They dont believe you. You insist you know nothing more. They deprive you of sleep. You insist you know nothing more. They start playing loud music 24/7, then force you to eat pork. Well, et cetera.

You see where your answer to Cyclo has an inherent problem? Yes, innocent people tell what they know, if they're not too afraid to. But as long as the soldiers don't believe them, that won't stop the soldiers from thinking "more than questioning" was "necessary". Few months later, and you might end up with Abu G.-like cases.

Thats where the risk lies once you start allowing for torture (or whatever transgression or suspension of the rules) in 'exceptional cases' - because the soldiers might just be wrong in thinking its an exceptional case. Better refrain until, like Cyclo said, you know they are guilty. Thats how we got to the "innocent until guilty" in the first place.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
All the abuses that have been brought to light thus far occured at Abu Ghraib prison by 6 or 7 individuals.

Incorrect. I believe you meant to say:

"All the abuses that I am personally aware of occured at at Abu Ghraib prison by 6 or 7 individuals."

A cursory reading of the US military's own investigations would dispell this notion.

True enough.

0 Replies

nimh, I think I said my peace about Abu Ghraib. The issue of Abu Ghraib has been settled. We ALL seem to be in agreement on that.

Now I can accept that you or anyone else is unable to deal with the question: what is torture? what is not torture? What is acceptable to force someone to give information that could save hundreds or thousands of lives? What isn't acceptable?

But changing that question to something else isn't helpful. And I think I'm going to give up as so far nobody but me has been inclined to deal with it.

I thought it pertinent however as the current U.S. administration is being demonized as somehow being in favor of torture. I think it would be useful to know what we would consider acceptable in interrogating a person if hundreds or thousands of lives were at stake. Once we determine what is and what is not acceptable, THEN have the debate on whether the U.S. government is condoning or conducting procedures that are not acceptable.

0 Replies

The amount of lives at stake don't matter.

It's not okay to bend your morals for potential problems in the future. What you are talking about is the beginning of a very slippery slope.

Either torture is wrong, or it isn't. The circumstances do not matter one way or the other. Remember, what you consider to be 'important' enough to use torture is an entirely subjective matter, whereas the idea that it is wrong to use force to manipulate a person is an objective one.

That being said, great discussion and I am out for the day, cheers!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know