Blockbuster Report From ICRC On Detainee Abuses

[Tiger Al 0]

When we do not use all means available to get information to protect our families, we are less safe. As to treatment of enemy combatants and the law; that is hardly decided.

You offer a false choice. Torture is not an effective means to extract accurate information.

I think we create 0 future terrorists by any action we take in this regard. The nutcases that flew into the WTC had not been tortured or mis-treated by any direct or indirect US actions. Radical Islam will find another enemy if it is not us. These people hate and become terrorists because they have a bankrupt belief system; not because the actions alledged in the Red Cross document. And, their actions predated any of the actions alleged in the Red Cross document...there is no cause and effect.

My experience with detainees would lead me to wholeheartedly disagree with you. You seem to have a very simplistic view of why these people have done what they've done. It's not simply "a bankrupt belief system."

The military teaches destroy the enemy and his will to fight. I don't see anything in these alleged actions that contradicts military doctrine or practice. These alleged actions are also much tamer than what I was taught as a matter of practice as a Force Reconaissance Marine 30 years ago.

Then you are not familiar with Detainee Operations doctrine and practice. Every one of the reported violations would have resulted in severe punishment under UCMJ, and rightly so.

[GoAU 1,612]

I don't believe that torture produces any intelligence that can't otherwise be obtained. That being the case, it serves no end that our country should be involved with.

The EXPERTS at interrogation in the CIA seem to disagree with you...

[Tiger Al 0]

I don't believe that torture produces any intelligence that can't otherwise be obtained. That being the case, it serves no end that our country should be involved with.

The EXPERTS at interrogation in the CIA seem to disagree with you...

Loose cannons are everywhere. Current and former CIA interrogators have repeatedly said that the results are dubious at best. The US Army and CIA gators that I've worked with in Iraq are of the same opinion. I saw them get actionable intel everyday and they never laid a hand on them. Torture works 100% of the time with Jack Bauer because that's fiction.

[japantiger 4,052]

I think the real problem in all this is that the actions called out in the RedCross doc's would never have been considered torture until someone decided to redefined torture to be fraternity hazing.

I didn't read anything in that report that implied anyone would have been permanantly scarred either mentally or physically. Stress positions, sleep deprivation, etc., are not torture.

The second point is I really don't care about their motivations...I don't care if my view is simplistic as you put it....motives are unimportant; outcomes matter. There is no motive; however sophisticated or nuanced, that justifies 9/11 type actions or terrorism. This is really black and white...Now I have to be concerned with Hitler's motives to understand if the Holocaust was wrong??? And, Radical Islam is a bankrupt belief system. It stands for oppression, misogeny, theocracy, government sanctioned mutilation, summery executions, and the list goes on.

There is plenty of information in the public domain that says aggressive interrogation does work against a determined enemy. If you are unconcerned about an immenent threat; then you don't have to pursue that as an option. You don't do it for the sake of doing it. But, if you have legitimate reason to believe there is a threat to the American people; nothing the Red Cross alleges are a problem.

[Tiger Al 0]

I think the real problem in all this is that the actions called out in the RedCross doc's would never have been considered torture until someone decided to redefined torture to be fraternity hazing.

I didn't read anything in that report that implied anyone would have been permanantly scarred either mentally or physically. Stress positions, sleep deprivation, etc., are not torture.

The second point is I really don't care about their motivations...I don't care if my view is simplistic as you put it....motives are unimportant; outcomes matter. There is no motive; however sophisticated or nuanced, that justifies 9/11 type actions or terrorism. This is really black and white...Now I have to be concerned with Hitler's motives to understand if the Holocaust was wrong??? And, Radical Islam is a bankrupt belief system. It stands for oppression, misogeny, theocracy, government sanctioned mutilation, summery executions, and the list goes on.

There is plenty of information in the public domain that says aggressive interrogation does work against a determined enemy. If you are unconcerned about an immenent threat; then you don't have to pursue that as an option. You don't do it for the sake of doing it. But, if you have legitimate reason to believe there is a threat to the American people; nothing the Red Cross alleges are a problem.

That's all you had to say.

[TitanTiger 20,538]

I think the real problem in all this is that the actions called out in the RedCross doc's would never have been considered torture until someone decided to redefined torture to be fraternity hazing.

Either you're utterly incapable of arguing in an intellectually honest manner or you need remedial reading classes. Since when is waterboarding, putting a collar around someone's neck and slamming them against the wall, beating and kicking people, denying people use of a toilet while in the stress positions until they defecate on themselves just "fraternity hazing?" Just what in the hell sort of fraternities did you pledge in college?

The second point is I really don't care about their motivations...I don't care if my view is simplistic as you put it....motives are unimportant; outcomes matter. There is no motive; however sophisticated or nuanced, that justifies 9/11 type actions or terrorism. This is really black and white...Now I have to be concerned with Hitler's motives to understand if the Holocaust was wrong??? And, Radical Islam is a bankrupt belief system. It stands for oppression, misogeny, theocracy, government sanctioned mutilation, summery executions, and the list goes on.

In other words, for you the ends justify the means. That's patently immoral.

There is plenty of information in the public domain that says aggressive interrogation does work against a determined enemy. If you are unconcerned about an immenent threat; then you don't have to pursue that as an option. You don't do it for the sake of doing it. But, if you have legitimate reason to believe there is a threat to the American people; nothing the Red Cross alleges are a problem.

There is far more information to the contrary. You just choose to believe what you want to believe.

[GoAU 1,612]

That's all you had to say.

And is obviously all you wanted to read, as he didn't agree with you that we should just talk nice and serve them all cookies and lemonade.

Either you're utterly incapable of arguing in an intellectually honest manner or you need remedial reading classes. Since when is waterboarding, putting a collar around someone's neck and slamming them against the wall, beating and kicking people, denying people use of a toilet while in the stress positions until they defecate on themselves just "fraternity hazing?" Just what in the hell sort of fraternities did you pledge in college?

I disagree. Although not necessarily the preferred or "nice" way to do things, the methods you list above also aren't the hard-line "torture" that I think of when I see the headlines in these reports. I think you have attempted to oversimplify the situation and aren't aware of the types of people that we're dealing with.

[OldNewby 27]

There is some question as to the ICRC's neutrality. Keep in mind that the report is based on claims made by the terrorists. And was leaked by Mark Danner http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_...amp;safe=images, who has article on the report due out April 30th, 2009. (actually written April 2, 2009, it appears as an article dated April 30, 2009 on the NYBooks web site: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22614)

It might be wise to consider the whos and whats and whys of the report before taking it as gospel.

December 20, 2004, 8:00 a.m.

Not Your Father’s Red Cross

Just another advocacy NGO?

By David B. Rivkin Jr., Lee A. Casey & Mark Wendell DeLaquil

If you believe the editors of The New Republic (TNR), the “vast right-wing conspiracy” has found another victim — this time in the form of the Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). In its December 20, 2004, issue, TNR castigates the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page for daring to contest and criticize the ICRC’s own repeated attacks on the Bush administration’s classification and detention of enemy combatants captured in the war on terror. The ICRC has been the subject of all this right-wing “vitriol,” note TNR’s editors, for “having the temerity to do its job.” In fact, the ICRC has drawn this fire not for doing its job, which is to act as a neutral and impartial interlocutor during wartime. Rather, it has been the subject of well-deserved criticism for acting like an international-advocacy group whose job is to promote a radical vision of international law that the United States has flatly rejected, and which would do great harm to its vital national interests. That is why conservatives are rightly miffed at the ICRC, and why they have properly let their views be known.

Founded in the mid-19th century as an organization dedicated to relieving the suffering of wounded soldiers on the battlefield, for more than a century, the ICRC attempted a scrupulous neutrality among warring nations — even between the Allies and the Axis during World War II. Because of this neutrality (and because it was based in neutral Switzerland), the group was accorded a unique international role in defending the interests of prisoners of war (POWs) and victims of warfare — a role specifically sanctioned in the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. These treaties, which define the minimum standards of humane treatment during armed conflict for the wounded and sick in the field, victims of shipwreck, prisoners of war, and civilians, recognized the ICRC as “an impartial humanitarian body” and a preferred interlocutor.

This, however, is no longer an accurate description of this venerable organization. For the past 30 years, the ICRC has been attempting to “move” the laws governing armed conflict towards providing greater protections for irregular or guerilla fighters, what we would today call terrorists. This appears, in part, to be attributable to the general sympathy of “progressive” elites for post-World War II national liberation movements, which favored guerilla organization and tactics, and, in part, to a quixotic hope that such irregulars would behave less savagely if brought more firmly within the international legal system. The high watermark of these efforts was the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions, which grants significant protections — and advantages in combat — to guerillas.

The United States, however, rejected this treaty for the very reason that it granted a privileged legal status to individuals it considers to be “unlawful” enemy combatants — such as the captured al Qaeda and Taliban members now detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This classification, which TNR incorrectly claimed was “invented” by the Bush administration, is well grounded in the traditional laws of war, which still apply to the United States. (TNR’s fact checkers, had they bothered, would have discovered this by examining either the relevant U.S. Supreme Court precedents or any of the standard manuals of military law — such as the British manual used during the two world wars — where the designation of “enemy combatant” and requirements for “lawful” combatant status are discussed in detail.) As the Independent Panel to Review DOD Detention Operations, headed by former Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger, explained in its August, 2004, report, in “1986 the ICRC acknowledged that it and the U.S. government had ‘agreed to disagree’ on the applicability of Protocol I.”

Nevertheless, as the Schlesinger panel further noted, the ICRC “continues to presume that the United States should adhere to this standard under the guise of customary international law.” That presumption is legally wrong (since the United States cannot be bound by “customary law” to which it has persistently objected), and would require the United States to treat captured al Qaeda and Taliban members as honorable, lawful prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, or as civilian criminal defendants, entitled to a speedy trial in a civilian court. The detainees merit neither status, and the United States’ refusal to humor the ICRC’s pretensions in this respect has prompted that organization’s public attacks on the Administration’s policy at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

Most recently, of course, a supposedly “private” ICRC report (dated June, 2004), detailing the group’s objections to the Guantanamo detention policies, was leaked to the media in an obvious effort again to pressure Administration officials into adopting the ICRC’s approach. Although the actual source of this leak — to the New York Times — is unclear, the ICRC was quick to confirm that it is “concerned that significant problems regarding conditions and treatment at Guantanamo Bay have not yet been adequately addressed.” As described in the media, that report accused the United States of practices “tantamount to torture,” including simply holding detainees “indefinitely.”

Nothing illustrates how far the ICRC has strayed from its historic role than this peculiar claim. The right to hold captured enemy combatants until hostilities end is one of the most basic and well-established aspects of the laws of war. Its establishment was, as it happens, a major humanitarian advance in the laws and customs of war — since it is inextricably linked with the obligation to take an enemy prisoner, when possible, rather than simply killing him on the battlefield. Doubtless, not knowing when the war on terror will end, when al Qaeda in particular will finally be destroyed, imposes psychological stress on the Guantanamo detainees, as it does on the rest of us. It is stress, however, that they — and their compatriots — brought on themselves. Perhaps more to the point, it is stress that the law, as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in its 2004 war-on-terror cases, permits. (From the ICRC’s perspective, of course, to the extent that the Supreme Court’s position differs from its own view of “progressive” international norms, it is irrelevant.)

Similarly, the ICRC considers any method of interrogation designed to coerce cooperation, whether or not it involves the severe pain defined by the law as torture, to be forbidden. Certainly “stress” methods of interrogation, such as forced positions, exposure to temperature extremes, and solitary confinement, are not pleasant, and they can constitute forbidden “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment if taken to a sufficient extreme. However, opposing the use of any coercive method, simply because it is designed to coerce, goes far beyond current legal requirements, and ignores the very real and immediate threat faced by the United States.

The purpose of interrogations is to obtain information that will permit the U.S. to anticipate attacks against its forces overseas and, most especially, civilian targets at home. By insisting that no coercion is permissible, the ICRC is demanding that captured al Qaeda and Taliban members be treated as lawful POWs would have to be treated under the Geneva Conventions. In fact, under the Geneva Conventions, coercion is forbidden for individuals who qualify as POWs. The reasoning behind this rule is straightforward. The Conventions assume that warring parties will be nation states whose armed forces meet the basic requirements of lawful combatancy. That is, they are subordinate to a responsible command structure, wear uniforms, carry their arms openly, and comply with the laws of war in their operations (particularly the absolute injunction against targeting civilians for attack). Given these circumstances, each state has an equal right to kept its military capabilities and plans secret, and a POWs cannot be forced, in any manner, to betray his allegiance to his own country by revealing those secrets.

None of this applies to either al Qaeda or the Taliban. Al Qaeda is not a state, not a party to the Geneva Conventions, and it has no legal or moral right to keep its capabilities and plans secret. The Taliban, although it once controlled about 90 percent of Afghanistan, was never recognized as the Afghan government, and did not organize itself as the lawful armed forces of a state. As a result, the members of al Qaeda and the Taliban are not entitled to the benefits of POW-status, whether through actual application of the Geneva Conventions, or through ICRC insistence that a failure to apply those requirements is “tantamount to torture.”

By taking this position, the ICRC has, in fact, ignored the humanitarian considerations that support using “coercive” methods of interrogation against al Qaeda and Taliban captives. These groups deliberately target civilians for attack, and civilians have an indisputable right — under international law as well as under most domestic legal regimes — to be protected from such attacks. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, for example, guarantees “every human being” the “inherent right to life,” and further states that “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” The states parties to this treaty, including the United States, have an affirmative obligation to ensure this right — and they are not permitted to derogate from this obligation. By demanding that the Guantanamo detainees be treated as POWs, the ICRC has lost sight of this imperative. In fact, like the proverbial “generals,” the ICRC is fighting the battles of its past — a pre-September 11 past where the greatest danger to the individual came from governments and, during wartime, the armed forces of governments. That world, of course, crashed into lower Manhattan along with the ruined Twin Towers. To again quote the Schlesinger report: “the ICRC, no less than the Defense Department, needs to adapt itself to the new realities of conflict, which are far different from the western European environment from which the ICRC’s interpretation of the Geneva Conventions was drawn.”

In the meantime, some choices are in order. The ICRC can certainly continue to act as an advocate, pushing an agenda in the same manner as other nongovernmental organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International do. That role, however, is fundamentally inconsistent with the ICRC’s traditional job of neutral interlocutor — on which its unique status in international law, and especially the recognition it enjoys under the Geneva Conventions, is premised. Similarly, it is as an impartial organization, and not an advocacy group, that the ICRC receives about 1/3 of its annual budget — $203 million in 2003 alone — from the American taxpayer. The ICRC cannot keep that status, or the money, and not do the job. It must choose, and soon.

— David B. Rivkin Jr., Lee A. Casey, and Mark Wendell DeLaquil practice law in the Washington, D.C., office of Baker & Hostetler LLP. Rivkin and Casey served in the Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and are members of the United Nations Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. The views expressed are the authors’ own.

link: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rivk...00412200800.asp

June 15, 2005

The International Committee of the Red Cross gets special access to prisons around the world as the neutral observer body designated by the Geneva Conventions. But for more than three years now the ICRC has abused that position of trust to wage an unprecedented propaganda war against the United States.

Leaked ICRC reports have described conditions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as "tantamount to torture" because indefinite detention is stressful. And just last month the ICRC's Washington office broke its confidentiality agreement with the U.S. government to fan the flames created by Newsweek's false Quran-abuse story.

Fortunately, Capitol Hill is starting to notice. A study released Monday by the Senate Republican Policy Committee says the ICRC has "lost its way," and suggests annual reviews be conducted by the State, Defense, and Justice Departments to certify that the organization truly adheres to its stated principles of "neutrality, impartiality and humanity."

In particular, the study raps the ICRC for its efforts to "afford terrorists and insurgents the same rights and privileges as [uniformed] military personnel" by misleadingly pretending that a radical document called Protocol 1 is settled international law. This causes the ICRC to "inaccurately and unfairly accuse the U.S. of not adhering to the Geneva Conventions."

U.S. taxpayers are the largest contributors to the ICRC's budget ($233 million, or 26%, in 2003). They have a right to expect an honest interpretation of the Geneva Conventions for that money, not more leaked reports that will be spun to give aid and comfort to al Qaeda.

link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1118794588...d%255Foutlooksw

As Bad as the Nazis?

What the Red Cross thinks about the U.S. military.

Monday, May 23, 2005 12:01 A.M. EDT

The International Committee of the Red Cross is granted a privileged status to inspect the conditions of prisoners of war and other detainees in return for confidentiality. But in recent years it has demonstrated a habit of selective media leaks damaging to American purposes. This is the backdrop for two recent incidents that make us think the U.S. should reconsider the ICRC's role.

The first concerns a story we heard first from a U.S. source that an ICRC representative visiting America's largest detention facility in Iraq last month had compared the U.S. to Nazi Germany. According to a Defense Department source citing internal Pentagon documents, the ICRC team leader told U.S. authorities at Camp Bucca: "You people are no better than and no different than the Nazi concentration camp guards." She was upset about not being granted immediate access shortly after a prison riot, when U.S. commanders may have been thinking of her own safety, among other considerations.

A second, senior Defense Department source we asked about the episode confirmed that the quote above is accurate. And a third, very well-placed American source we contacted separately told us that some kind of reference was made by the Red Cross representative "to either Nazis or the Third Reich"--which understandably offended the American soldiers present.

We called the ICRC last Wednesday for its side of the story, and a spokesman in Geneva confirmed that "there was a serious misunderstanding between the ICRC's team leader and [Coalition] authorities during our last visit to Camp Bucca." The ICRC also confirmed that "the team leader subsequently decided to leave the Iraq assignment."

The spokesman added, however, that he "can categorically say that the team leader did not in any sense compare the detention regime in Iraq to what happened in the Third Reich." Pressed as to whether he could rule out those terms having been used, the spokesman declined, citing the ICRC's practice of confidentiality when it comes to relations with the governments with which it works.

However, a second episode later last week shows that the ICRC is only too happy to throw that same confidentiality rule out the window when it suits its ideological purposes. It did so in the wake of the false Newsweek report about the treatment of the Quran at Guantanamo Bay. The ICRC's Washington office volunteered to the world's media that it had given the Pentagon "multiple" reports from Guantanamo detainees about mishandling of the Quran, after which the detainee complaints had ceased. Pentagon officials confirmed the news, adding that the incidents had been both "minor" and "inadvertent."

In other words, the ICRC hides behind the confidentiality rule when being candid might embarrass its own officials. But it drops the same rule when it is in a position to embarrass the United States, however unfairly. News of the ICRC Quran reports last week came just as the U.S. was scrambling to undo the damage in the Muslim world from the discredited Newsweek story.

This behavior has unfortunately become an ICRC pattern. A pair of earlier ICRC reports on U.S. detention policies in Iraq and at Guantanamo were leaked to the press, and readily confirmed by ICRC officials in Geneva. The Guantanamo report, moreover, called the practice of indefinite detention at that prison "tantamount to torture," a phrase that has since been repeated everywhere by people wanting to damage the U.S.

As we pointed out at the time, that statement was absurd, given that the ICRC's main complaint about the Gitmo detainees is that they were not granted prisoner of war status. POWs are explicitly allowed by the Geneva Conventions to be held indefinitely--that is, for the duration of a conflict. Another problem has been the ICRC's pretense that its policy document called Protocol 1--once dubbed "a shield for terrorists" by the New York Times--is settled international law and applies to the U.S.

Which brings us back to the "Nazi" reference by that ICRC official at Camp Bucca. We wouldn't normally report the remarks, however offensive, of a single official. But after we started asking about the incident, we began to hear from other sources that someone was attempting damage control by alerting the ICRC's friends in the media and State Department about what we might report. One media proponent of the "torture" allegation against the U.S. warned on the Internet that we were out to smear the ICRC (which, we should add, is not the same as the American Red Cross).

No. We are trying to understand how a representative of an organization pledged to neutrality and the honest investigation of detainee practices could compare American soldiers to the Nazi SS. And considering the timing and content of several ICRC confidentiality breaches concerning the U.S. war on terror, it's fair to ask if similar views aren't held by a substantial number in the organization.

The world needs a truly neutral humanitarian body of the sort the ICRC is supposed to be. But the Camp Bucca incident--in addition to the leaked Gitmo and Abu Ghraib reports--is evidence it isn't currently up to the task.

link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110006725

Red Cross Described 'Torture' at CIA Jails

Secret Report Implies That U.S. Violated International Law

By Joby Warrick, Peter Finn and Julie Tate

Washington Post Staff Writers

Monday, March 16, 2009; A01

The International Committee of the Red Cross concluded in a secret report that the Bush administration's treatment of al-Qaeda captives "constituted torture," a finding that strongly implied that CIA interrogation methods violated international law, according to newly published excerpts from the long-concealed 2007 document.

The report, an account alleging physical and psychological brutality inside CIA "black site" prisons, also states that some U.S. practices amounted to "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." Such maltreatment of detainees is expressly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.

The findings were based on an investigation by ICRC officials, who were granted exclusive access to the CIA's "high-value" detainees after they were transferred in 2006 to the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The 14 detainees, who had been kept in isolation in CIA prisons overseas, gave remarkably uniform accounts of abuse that included beatings, sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures and, in some cases, waterboarding, or simulating drowning.

At least five copies of the report were shared with the CIA and top White House officials in 2007 but barred from public release by ICRC guidelines intended to preserve the humanitarian group's strict policy of neutrality in conflicts. A copy of the report was obtained by Mark Danner, a journalism professor and author who published extensive excerpts in the April 9 edition of the New York Review of Books, released yesterday. He did not say how he obtained the report.

"The ill-treatment to which they were subjected while held in the CIA program, either singly or in combination, constituted torture," Danner quoted the report as saying.

Many of the details of alleged mistreatment at CIA prisons had been reported previously, but the ICRC report is the most authoritative account and the first to use the word "torture" in a legal context.

The CIA declined to comment. A U.S. official familiar with the report said, "It is important to bear in mind that the report lays out claims made by the terrorists themselves."

excerpt, more at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1502724_pf.html

[GoAU 1,612]

Great post OldNewby - things that often get overlooked.

[TitanTiger 20,538]

The Red Cross report may be doing that, but it's not like their stories haven't been at least partially corroborated by others. Such as this former guard at Gitmo:

On December 4, 2008, Specialist Brandon Neely approached CSHRA with testimony he wished to contribute to the Guantánamo Testimonials Project. He believed that insufficient attention had been paid to "the hell that went on at Camp X-Ray." He would be in a position to know, as he arrived in Guantánamo while the cages of Camp X-Ray were still being welded, and escorted the second detainee to hit the prison grounds. In this interview, Specialist Neely provides testimony of the arrival of the detainees in full sensory-deprivation garb, sexual abuse by medical personnel, torture by other medical personnel, brutal beatings out of frustration, fear, and retribution, the first hunger strike and its causes, torturous shackling, positional torture, interference with religious practices and beliefs, verbal abuse, restriction of recreation, the behavior of mentally ill detainees, possible isolation regime of the first six children in GTMO, utter lack of preparation for guarding individuals detained during the War on Terror, and his conversations with prisoners David Hicks and Rhuhel Ahmed.

http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/projects/th...f-brandon-neely

His story was also reported by the Associated Press (picked up by multiple outlets) and in Harper's Magazine.

I have a feeling that with Cheney and others out of power, you'll probably be hearing a few more of these accounts, especially as folks get out of the military and feel they can speak freely.

Again, this is not an indictment on all of our soldiers. It's actually just a small, small percentage of them. But it is an indictment on the people in charge that authorized or purposely looked the other way while people did this stuff.

[CCTAU 3,355]

Everything is subjective. If torture saves the life of my son while he is patrolling the streets of Baghdad or the mountains of Afghanistan, then I could care less if the judgment of all man-kind fell upon my shoulders. Human life to these people means nothing, therefore, whatever it takes to secure the lives of our people should be put first.

The sad part is that you bunch of "justification hounds" are causing problems for our troops on the ground. And many of you don't even know it.

Don't cry to me about Jesus and righteousness. God killed off whole societies. After defeating the SOLDIERS of their enemy, God's people killed the women and children and lame and livestock. I guess there was no torture for those awaiting their turn at the sword. Jesus does not fight the physical battle, he helps judge the loser.

Is the Geneva convention actually LAW? If so, who polices it? And why have none of the counties in the middle east ever been prosecuted for breaking that law? Well maybe because the combatants are not really covered under the Geneva convention because they are all TERRORISTS and not soldiers of a country covered under the convention.

You guys can save the souls of the world if you like. I only care about those that belong to my country.

[TitanTiger 20,538]

Everything is subjective.

You don't really believe this.

If torture saves the life of my son while he is patrolling the streets of Baghdad or the mountains of Afghanistan, then I could care less if the judgment of all man-kind fell upon my shoulders. Human life to these people means nothing, therefore, whatever it takes to secure the lives of our people should be put first.

First of all, you don't know if even know if this is true. Second, there are more effective ways of getting good information than torture. The problem with torture is that while you might get some good, actionable intel, it comes in a sea of crap intel that you then have to sift through (wasting precious time). Then there are the wild goose chases the bad intel sends us on, where we put troops in harm's way over a total bull**** story, possibly even sending them into an ambush. You're just as likely, if not moreso, to be risking and losing more lives than you're saving or putting at lower risk. But you've managed to do it in a way that is the least efficient because of the time and energy needed to find out what's good and what isn't. In a situation where time is of the essence, you've often done the exact opposite of "timely."

The sad part is that you bunch of "justification hounds" are causing problems for our troops on the ground. And many of you don't even know it.

As I stated above, you position is even more problematic for the troops on the ground but you won't think deeply enough about it to admit it. Second, what am I justifying? If anyone is justifying things it's you...ignoring every moral directive Scripture contains to follow what seems right to you.

Don't cry to me about Jesus and righteousness. God killed off whole societies. After defeating the SOLDIERS of their enemy, God's people killed the women and children and lame and livestock. I guess there was no torture for those awaiting their turn at the sword. Jesus does not fight the physical battle, he helps judge the loser.

1. If you can't tell that Jesus instituted a culmination of a different way of dealing with mankind just from a basic reading of the Bible, you aren't paying attention.

2. America is not ancient Israel.

3. The US Government is not Moses, Joshua, Samuel or any other sort of prophet.

4. We have been given no directive by God to do anything close to what was going on back then.

And I'm the one "justifying?" That's a fascinating grip of language and meaning you've got there. It's like it's Opposite Day in your world.

Is the Geneva convention actually LAW? If so, who polices it?

It's a convention we signed our name to and pledged to follow and uphold. It has the force of law even if it doesn't work the same way local and state laws work.

And why have none of the counties in the middle east ever been prosecuted for breaking that law? Well maybe because the combatants are not really covered under the Geneva convention because they are all TERRORISTS and not soldiers of a country covered under the convention.

Partly because the terrorists don't belong to any particular country. On the other hand, our soldiers operate under the directives of the US Government. The other part is, because we're so fearful that a world court might bring some of our own soldiers and leaders to trial for war crimes against the Geneva Convention, we've stonewalled most attempts to put teeth into the policing of it.

You guys can save the souls of the world if you like. I only care about those that belong to my country.

I want to save the souls of the people of my country. In fact, they are the ones who are doing the most damage to their souls by their involvement in this stuff.

[CCTAU 3,355]

Like I said, subjective. You believe what you want to believe and we'll believe what we want to believe. In the end, I just hope whoever is right saves the most lives.

[TitanTiger 20,538]

Like I said, subjective. You believe what you want to believe and we'll believe what we want to believe. In the end, I just hope whoever is right saves the most lives.

Do you believe in objective morality or is your morality utilitarian ("whatever works")?

[CCTAU 3,355]

Like I said, subjective. You believe what you want to believe and we'll believe what we want to believe. In the end, I just hope whoever is right saves the most lives.

Do you believe in objective morality or is your morality utilitarian ("whatever works")?

Now you're just preaching.

[TitanTiger 20,538]

Like I said, subjective. You believe what you want to believe and we'll believe what we want to believe. In the end, I just hope whoever is right saves the most lives.

Do you believe in objective morality or is your morality utilitarian ("whatever works")?

Now you're just preaching.

And you're dodging.

[japantiger 4,052]

To your quote

"Either you're utterly incapable of arguing in an intellectually honest manner or you need remedial reading classes. Since when is waterboarding, putting a collar around someone's neck and slamming them against the wall, beating and kicking people, denying people use of a toilet while in the stress positions until they defecate on themselves just "fraternity hazing?" Just what in the hell sort of fraternities did you pledge in college?"

Before 2001; none of these actions would have been considered torture. International standard and US law up to that point required "permanent physical and mental injury". Kicking someone or slamming their head into a wall does not meet that standard. The Red Cross does not allege permanent injury. Making them piss their pants doesn't meet that standard. No one was killed or maimed. All were detained after having been caught in the act, were fed and given medical treatment. This is like a Cops episode...not 24.

To your point:

"In other words, for you the ends justify the means. That's patently immoral."

You completely misread this...you made the point that the terrorists motivations were not all driven by a bankrupt belief system (ie., Radical Islam) as if that somehow made the outcome justifiable or my proposition was faulty because I misread their motives. My point was; who cares...even if I got it 100% wrong; it's irrelevant. I don't really care about their motivations...I only care that they kill indiscriminatly and hate us. I don't care if it was because of Radical Islam, Parental abuse, or Barney told them to do it...I only care that they do it and must be stopped.

To your point on evidence to the contrary; I would love to see it. I have not seen an objective analysis that says that aggressive interrogation techniques as alleged by the Red Cross don't deliver short term results. I don't condone beating people for no reason; or slamming their heads into a wall...if there is another way...great. But in a time compressed and dangerous situation; these methods are pretty benign compared to the possible damage that can be inflicted by a determined enemy.

This isn't a parlor game. This isn't about politics.

[TitanTiger 20,538]

To your quote:

"Either you're utterly incapable of arguing in an intellectually honest manner or you need remedial reading classes. Since when is waterboarding, putting a collar around someone's neck and slamming them against the wall, beating and kicking people, denying people use of a toilet while in the stress positions until they defecate on themselves just "fraternity hazing?" Just what in the hell sort of fraternities did you pledge in college?"

Before 2001; none of these actions would have been considered torture. International standard and US law up to that point required "permanent physical and mental injury". Kicking someone or slamming their head into a wall does not meet that standard. The Red Cross does not allege permanent injury. Making them piss their pants doesn't meet that standard. No one was killed or maimed. All were detained after having been caught in the act, were fed and given medical treatment. This is like a Cops episode...not 24.

Wrong. Here is the Geneva Convention, adopted in 1949:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of

International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949

entry into force 21 October 1950

GENERAL PROTECTION OF PRISONERS OF WAR

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Article 14

Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men. Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.

Article 15

The Power detaining prisoners of war shall be bound to provide free of charge for their maintenance and for the medical attention required by their state of health.

Article 16

Taking into consideration the provisions of the present Convention relating to rank and sex, and subject to any privileged treatment which may be accorded to them by reason of their state of health, age or professional qualifications, all prisoners of war shall be treated alike by the Detaining Power, without any adverse distinction based on race, nationality, religious belief or political opinions, or any other distinction founded on similar criteria.

/snip/

QUARTERS, FOOD AND CLOTHING OF PRISONERS OF WAR

Article 25

Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health.

The foregoing provisions shall apply in particular to the dormitories of prisoners of war as regards both total surface and minimum cubic space, and the general installations, bedding and blankets.

The premises provided for the use of prisoners of war individually or collectively, shall be entirely protected from dampness and adequately heated and lighted, in particular between dusk and lights out. All precautions must be taken against the danger of fire.

In any camps in which women prisoners of war, as well as men, are accommodated, separate dormitories shall be provided for them.

Article 26

The basic daily food rations shall be sufficient in quantity, quality and variety to keep prisoners of war in good health and to prevent loss of weight or the development of nutritional deficiencies. Account shall also be taken of the habitual diet of the prisoners...

That's just from a quick perusal. All of these things violate the Geneva Conventions on treatment of captives. It has nothing to do with 2001. The only thing that changed around that time was that the Bush Administration tried to circumvent the conventions by creating a title for these prisoners, calling them "enemy combatants" rather than POWs. It was a semantic game.

To your point:

"In other words, for you the ends justify the means. That's patently immoral."

You completely misread this...you made the point that the terrorists motivations were not all driven by a bankrupt belief system (ie., Radical Islam)

Actually that was someone else.

as if that somehow made the outcome justifiable or my proposition was faulty because I misread their motives. My point was; who cares...even if I got it 100% wrong; it's irrelevant. I don't really care about their motivations...I only care that they kill indiscriminatly and hate us. I don't care if it was because of Radical Islam, Parental abuse, or Barney told them to do it...I only care that they do it and must be stopped.

And we can stop them without resorting to torture.

To your point on evidence to the contrary; I would love to see it. I have not seen an objective analysis that says that aggressive interrogation techniques as alleged by the Red Cross don't deliver short term results. I don't condone beating people for no reason; or slamming their heads into a wall...if there is another way...great. But in a time compressed and dangerous situation; these methods are pretty benign compared to the possible damage that can be inflicted by a determined enemy.

This isn't a parlor game. This isn't about politics.

I'll work on getting that to you if Tiger Al or someone else doesn't post it first.

[GoAU 1,612]

First of all, you don't know if even know if this is true.

Neither do you....

Second, there are more effective ways of getting good information than torture.

Yes there are - AT TIMES, different people respond to different techniques and there is no set "playbook". Not too mention many of the other techniques require time - which is not always a luxury available to our troops

The problem with torture is that while you might get some good, actionable intel, it comes in a sea of crap intel that you then have to sift through (wasting precious time). Then there are the wild goose chases the bad intel sends us on, where we put troops in harm's way over a total bull**** story, possibly even sending them into an ambush. You're just as likely, if not moreso, to be risking and losing more lives than you're saving or putting at lower risk. But you've managed to do it in a way that is the least efficient because of the time and energy needed to find out what's good and what isn't. In a situation where time is of the essence, you've often done the exact opposite of "timely."

Hypothetical, I can drum up many hypothetical situations leading to similar results.

As to all of the posting of the Geneva Convention - here's a couple of questions for you. You refer to Prisoners of WAR - what nation does al queda represent? have they declared "war"? has al-queda agreed to the Geneva Convention? if not, then we are not onligated to follow it while dealing with them either. Have they followed it? In addition to torture and EXECUTION of prisoners, we can point to hiding in protected buildings (mosques, schools, hospitals), retribution against civillians, misuse of uniforms to blend with civilian populations, etc. etc. etc.

Now is where I expect to hear the "we are better than them" line. And I agree, even with the "torture" the libs are crying about, we are operating light years ahead of them. Go cry to al queda about playing fair and see what they say.

[AURaptor 1,128]

Senator Durbin was excoriated

Lie of the day.

[TitanTiger 20,538]

Yes there are - AT TIMES, different people respond to different techniques and there is no set "playbook". Not too mention many of the other techniques require time - which is not always a luxury available to our troops

What good is "faster" if it's also wrong?

As to all of the posting of the Geneva Convention - here's a couple of questions for you. You refer to Prisoners of WAR - what nation does al queda represent? have they declared "war"? has al-queda agreed to the Geneva Convention? if not, then we are not onligated to follow it while dealing with them either. Have they followed it? In addition to torture and EXECUTION of prisoners, we can point to hiding in protected buildings (mosques, schools, hospitals), retribution against civillians, misuse of uniforms to blend with civilian populations, etc. etc. etc.

This is semantic bull**** and you know it. It's an artificial loophole the Bush Administration thought it found to get around treating prisoners humanely. Just because an enemy soldier doesn't wave the flag of one country or another doesn't mean you get to treat them anyway you feel like.

Yes, we are obligated to follow the Geneva Conventions that we signed onto to, regardless of whether the savages we fight against do so. That's what civilized nations do.

Now is where I expect to hear the "we are better than them" line. And I agree, even with the "torture" the libs are crying about, we are operating light years ahead of them. Go cry to al queda about playing fair and see what they say.

I don't care what savages have to say about morality. I care what we claim to say and what God says about it. Go cry to Him that we should be exempt from what He expects of people and nations because the other guys are so much worse. Since when do we grade on a curve?

[japantiger 4,052]

Four points:

Geneva concentions apply to soldiers in National Armies; not spies, espionage agents or terrorists...so just as every US president since Washington has done in time of war; you provide soldiers protections...you hang or shoot the others...they basically don't exist. Such radicals as Franklin Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and George Washington had no trouble in this regard.

2nd point, FDR's administration coined the term and practice that the Bush admin. followed calling them "enemy combatants" rather than POWs. I guess old FDR was engaged in a semantics game too; not trying to protect us. He always was a radical right winger...

T3rdpoint:

he US Senate defined torture as follows in 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) sections 2340-2340a (criminal statute):

AU/ACSC/5143/AY07

(a)…the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm.

This was the US law until 1994 and no one had trouble understanding what was and was not torture. A few kicks, slaps or bladder control problems don't rise to that standard. I was subjected to this much in my training 30 years ago on how to withstand capture.

Now we are trying to extend Geneva convention protections to those that were never by code, common law or practice intended to have them. The Geneva conventions were put in place to serve 2 purposes...proivde protections for a nations soldiers captured in battle. The second to incent warring nations to comply with certain international standards... the subjects we are describing are not soldiers of a warring nation. They are terrorists...this is not a hard distinction to make; it is a common sense definition that anyone historically has understood. The second, point is by extending these protections to spies, terrorists and espionage agents; you actually defeat the 2nd purposes of the conventions...you provide 0 incentive for the terrorists to stop what they are doing...they can kill, maim, behead, plan, etc., indiscriminently and know that they face a criminal conviction at the most. There is no common sense in this course....fundamentally, this weakens the conventions and puts my family at greater threat.

[TitanTiger 20,538]

Four points:

Geneva concentions apply to soldiers in National Armies; not spies, espionage agents or terrorists...so just as every US president since Washington has done in time of war; you provide soldiers protections...you hang or shoot the others...they basically don't exist. Such radicals as Franklin Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and George Washington had no trouble in this regard.

The Geneva Conventions say nothing about "terrorists." The Bush Administration merely used clever words to try and provide cover for violating the Geneva Conventions.

2nd point, FDR's administration coined the term and practice that the Bush admin. followed calling them "enemy combatants" rather than POWs. I guess old FDR was engaged in a semantics game too; not trying to protect us. He always was a radical right winger...

FDR interred thousands of Japanese Americans for no reason other than blind fear. I don't care if Mahatma Ghandi coined the term, it's bull****.

And drop this "right-wing/left-wing" nonsense. I could care less about those arbitrary labels and your argument gains no traction by resorting to it.

3rdpoint:

he US Senate defined torture as follows in 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) sections 2340-2340a (criminal statute):

AU/ACSC/5143/AY07

(a)…the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm.

This was the US law until 1994 and no one had trouble understanding what was and was not torture. A few kicks, slaps or bladder control problems don't rise to that standard. I was subjected to this much in my training 30 years ago on how to withstand capture.

As I've pointed out, and you keep avoiding, there was more going on than a "few kicks or slaps." Just because you're adept at tweaking others' arguments so your rebuttals sound better doesn't mean you're addressing the reality of the situation.

Now we are trying to extend Geneva convention protections to those that were never by code, common law or practice intended to have them. The Geneva conventions were put in place to serve 2 purposes...proivde protections for a nations soldiers captured in battle. The second to incent warring nations to comply with certain international standards... the subjects we are describing are not soldiers of a warring nation. They are terrorists...this is not a hard distinction to make; it is a common sense definition that anyone historically has understood. The second, point is by extending these protections to spies, terrorists and espionage agents; you actually defeat the 2nd purposes of the conventions...you provide 0 incentive for the terrorists to stop what they are doing...they can kill, maim, behead, plan, etc., indiscriminently and know that they face a criminal conviction at the most. There is no common sense in this course....fundamentally, this weakens the conventions and puts my family at greater threat.

Yes, they are afforded these protections. We (rightly) invaded Afghanistan and the Taliban and other Afghan citizens, helped by Al Qaida from other countries, fought us on the battlefield. They are POWs, not some made up category to whom the rules of a civilized society don't apply. We're not talking about spies or espionage agents, we're talking about soldiers on a battlefield so stop tossing red herrings around.

And none of this deals with the higher moral law we're called to uphold.

[japantiger 4,052]

What you are advocating is just bad policy...you don't give terrorists, spies and espionage agents the same protections you give US citizens. That's just stupid. We're never going to agree. This goes against common sense, common law, historical practice and intent of the conventions.

You don't Mirandize these folks. But kicking them; or banging their heads against the wall...or sleep depriving them...or putting them in stress positions is not torture by any historical or common sense standard....but what started this whole debate was the Red Cross allegations...and none of those alleged actions rise to the standard of torture....

You also don't torture indiscriminantly...or without probably cause...or without strong evidence of the ticking time bomb...

During the war on terror, there have been 26 cases that rose to the level of a probable cause investigation by the Justice Department regarding over aggressive us of interrogation or detention techniques (out of over 50,000 detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan)...that's .0005 or .05%. This is not a problem...no one really doesn't understand the rules... there's no confusion among those responsible for holding prisoners.

I'm done...

[Tiger Al 0]

TitanTiger, I'm sorry I seemed to abandon you here. I've been busy for a few days and had neither the time nor the motivation to get on the web. I'm sure you and I aren't the only ones on this side of the issue and I wish others had spoken up. Sorry.

What you are advocating is just bad policy...you don't give terrorists, spies and espionage agents the same protections you give US citizens. That's just stupid. We're never going to agree. This goes against common sense, common law, historical practice and intent of the conventions.

You don't Mirandize these folks. But kicking them; or banging their heads against the wall...or sleep depriving them...or putting them in stress positions is not torture by any historical or common sense standard....but what started this whole debate was the Red Cross allegations...and none of those alleged actions rise to the standard of torture....

You also don't torture indiscriminantly...or without probably cause...or without strong evidence of the ticking time bomb...

During the war on terror, there have been 26 cases that rose to the level of a probable cause investigation by the Justice Department regarding over aggressive us of interrogation or detention techniques (out of over 50,000 detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan)...that's .0005 or .05%. This is not a problem...no one really doesn't understand the rules... there's no confusion among those responsible for holding prisoners.

I'm throwing the bullsh!t card on this entire post except for the last sentence. I just got back from Iraq and was one of those responsible for holding prisoners and there was no confusion of the rules. The detainees we got were all high-value targets. I spoke at length with Army and civilian interrogators, intelligence and MP officers, operators as well as guards. We discussed the use of various "enhanced techniques" and none of them put much stock in them as quality interrogation procedures that would glean useful information and were, in fact, considered torture and weren't tolerated. Multiple layers of oversight were in place to ensure that no detainee abuse occurred. Not because the detainees were coddled, but because the legitimate interrogation procedures work and because mistreatment of detainees is wrong. We did things the right way and, as I said before, we got accurate intel every day.