Prisoners 'killed' at US Base

I want to broaden the discussion.

Do you see cases where torture is justified?

Frankfurt police admitted they threatened to torture a suspected kidnapper for refusing to tell them the whereabouts of an 11-year-old boy.

Police say they were only trying to save the boy's life but the case has set off a public debate about law enforcement methods in a nation where polls regularly show that citizens hold the police in high esteem.

Jakob von Metzler, son of a prominent Frankfurt banking family, disappeared on his way home from school on Sept. 27. Three days later, police arrested law student Magnus Gaefgen after observing him pick up $1 million in ransom.

Gaefgen initially told police the boy was still alive, naming several locations that turned up nothing.

After several more hours of unproductive questioning, Deputy Police Chief Wolfgang Daschner, who was leading the interrogation, says he decided that threatening force was the only chance to save the child's life.

"I thought, I can sit with my hands in my lap and wait until Gaefgen maybe, at some point, decides to tell the truth and in the meantime the child is long dead,"

Or I do everything I can now to prevent just that.

Daschner said he told interrogators to "threaten him with pain, pain more intense than he has ever experienced it before." A martial arts trainer was on call and prepared to use force against Gaefgen had he not confessed, Daschner said.

Within 10 minutes, Gaefgen admitted that the boy was dead and led police to the lake outside Frankfurt where he had bundled the child's body into plastic bags and stashed it beneath a dock. He later confessed to the killing.

Prosecutors opened a criminal investigation into events at the police precinct after Gaefgen's lawyer accused police of torture this week.

The lawyer, Ulrich Endres, said police told Gaefgen a torture specialist was being flown in by helicopter and threatened to lock him in a cell where he would be raped by other inmates.

Is there a difference in threatening with torture and really doing it?

This will I am sure offend the bleeding hearts of the world. However, I believe there should be more concern for the rights the victim and less for the criminal. I applaud Deputy Police Chief Wolfgang Daschner, who was leading the interrogation.
Regarding the interrogation of Afghan prisoners and terrorists. Anything other than physical pain is IMO permissible.

they were still suspects. What happend to 'unguilty
until proven otherwise' They now got Capital Punishment without trial. Is that normal for an army of a democratic coutry?

. Amnesty International: There is no 'Acceptable' Torture
by: Amnesty International
http://www.amnestyusa.org
3/11/2003

Just days after George W. Bush reportedly assured UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Sergio Vieira de Mello that the US is not torturing prisoners during interrogation, an article in today's New York Times quotes numerous US officials admitting that US interrogators are using such methods as holding prisoners in prolonged painful positions and withholding access to food and water.
Amnesty International, which recently has met with Department of Defense officials on this issue, renewed its call for President Bush to condemn publicly all forms of torture, and for the commander-in-chief to enforce the international prohibition on torture in interrogation of suspects.

The Times article repeatedly quotes US officials claiming they use only "acceptable techniques" for interrogation, including sleep and light deprivation and the temporary withholding of food, water, access to sunlight and medical attention, allegedly even for a prisoner who had been shot.

"The tactics US officials openly admit to constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or torture. These statements by US officials are an admission of complicity in torture," said Dr. William F. Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA. "Furthermore, transfer of prisoners to the custody of other countries where they are likely to be tortured is also a violation of international law. President Bush should issue a public, unequivocal statement rejecting all forms of torture by US officials and their foreign allies, just as his father did in 1992. US and international law are clear and absolute: torture is unacceptable regardless of the rationale or threat."

Amnesty International has conducted three worldwide campaigns against torture, the most recent concluding in 2002.

"While the US now may feel safer with several key suspects apprehended, US troops in Iraq may well soon be placed in harm's way and taken prisoner," Schulz warned. "American citizens would be outraged if US servicemen or women are subjected to illegal and brutal detention or interrogation such as the US admits to be practicing."

The same techniques US officials reportedly are employing -- including hooding, holding in prolonged painful positions, and denial of food and sleep -- were cited and condemned as torture in the 2002 Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in countries including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, China, and Haiti.

gross

Detention facility is not a five stars hotel. People that are held there are not innocent civilians, they are militants of one of the most dangerous terrorist organizations. They possess knowledge that may help to fight terror and to prevent further attacks on the American civilians. It is obvious that they have no desire to cooperate with inquirers, and to provide them with such an information. Therefore, no choice is left to applying physical pressure on the detainees in order to get the information.
The arrested Taliban/Al-Qaeda militants may prevent physical methods by means of complete and unconditional cooperation with their detainers. They have lost the war, and it is reasonable that they have to submit.

Well, since Germany is still a democratic country with a constitution in a civilized world, anyone in any custody is innocent until she/he is sentenced by a legal court.

Torture is of not legal in Germany. Prosecutors are investigating against those police forces.
But although
- Article 5 of the general declaration of human rights, which Germany has signed, reads: "Nobody may be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." This applies without exception
- some right wing conservatives are "understanding" these tortures.

We get Americanized here as well, I fear.

Just a clarification - it's "not guilty until proven innocent", not "unguilty until proven otherwise" which would be "not guilty until proven guilty".

I realise that it stated "innocent until proven guilty", but it simply not the case. Not according to any newspaper I've ever read about suspicions about anyone.

Big difference.

Tortures were not invented in the USA. Some 22-23 years ago, still in the USSR, I had a neighbor, a retired Soviet infantry officer that was a POW for some time. He remembered well interrogation in the HQ of the 6th Army (by that time its commander was Fieldmarshal Walter von Reichenau and not Friedrich Paulus) in the beginning of 1942... Special methods of interrogation are being employed in all the world under certain circumstances (for example, war), and neither Germany, nor Israel, Russia or USA are exceptions.

Sugar

I'm not aware about US law concerning this.

In Roman law (what is law in most parts of Europe) it's "innocent until proven guilty".
Same applies to English Common Code of Law, which is -as far as I know- very similar to the US law.

steissd

Just as an info in brackets: Walter von Reichenau died on 17th January 1942, when the plane carrying him to Leipzig crash-landed. He gave up command of the 6th army on December 31, 1941.

Walter - the law says "innocent until proven guilty" but that's just not the case. For example - many priests are being charged and suspended for sexual misconduct charges, proven or unproven.

If the charges are dropped, it's irrelevant. The stigma will stay with that priest until he dies. There is no problems with printing all kinds of stories, charges and innuendo that would seem to be the truth to readers if you don't catch the word "alledged" buried somewhere.

Just an example - but anyone that ends up on the front page around here might as throw oneself in prison. They never print "Remember that child molester? He's innocent!" on page one, if at all.

OK, this man was captured in the very beginning of 1942, around the New Year holiday. He claims that he saw Mr. von Reichenau himself, though, of course Field Marshal did not interrogate him. This officer had a high rank (he was colonel and commanded a brigade that was defeated by Wehrmacht), that is why he was interrogated in the 6th Army HQ.
Maybe, Mr. Reichenau has already been dismissed from the command position, but the POW did not know this.

steissd

I was just referring to what you wrote and didn't doubt the quotation of your witness.

OK, my information is based on his evidence. I knew that Mr. von Reichenau perished in the air crash in 1942, and I did not know the exact date. When the former POW told me that he was interrogated in the HQ of the 6th Army, I asked him whether he managed to see Friedrich Paulus. He replied that the commander by that time was Mr. von Reichenau, and he was present at some episodes of his being interrogated; this officer knows German, so Field Marshal asked him some questions; he refused to answer, Field Marshal called him a Russian Communist pig and went away, and the interrogators having ranks of captain and major forced him to provide information the Field Marshal inquired about. Field Marshal did not interrogate him personally, but it seems to him that the plan of interrogation (I mean, questions) were prepared by him or his close associates, since the very character of questions showed that they were compiled by very well informed military professionals. After such an interrogation the Soviet colonel had scars of burn wounds on the back all his life.

Re: Prisoners 'killed' at US Base

Typical liberal-speak. First, they claim that "torture" has been alleged, then they mention "techniques of dubious legality" referring at last to discomfort and sleep deprivation. For exactly whom is the legality of these techniques "dubious"? That they are legal is not questioned. That some don't like these techniques and think they are wrong does not make their legality "dubious". You can argue whether they should be used. You can even argue whether or not these techniques should be legal, but there is no question that they are in fact legal at this time.

Oh, and one thing that is not the least bit "dubious"... while you are worried about whether these prisoners are getting enough sleep, their comrades are planning ways to kill you and other innocent civilians. On the off chance that one of the prisoners knows something that might help us to prevent your death and the death of many other innocent people, I'm not all that concerned with how comfortable they are or how much sleep they are getting.

Amnesty international, Does anyone ever listen to what they have to say?

Steissd

Thank you for constantly defending American ideals and integrity against all comers-----I am humbled and embarrassed that a foreign national is the ONLY participant on this forum that consistently defends this country as well as you.

I for one am indebted to you.

Well, maybe I give the French people the example of how the true allies must behave...