TIME Details a Guantanamo intelligence gathering case study

[blike]

I just read a TIME magazine article which included specific details of intelligence gathering methods used on a detainee at guantanamo bay. It was very interesting. The methods the US interrogators used would probably be considered "light" torture by most people. Although I'm an advocate of aggressive interrogation, I cannot support torture. Naturally, I found myself questioning whether or not some of the methods they used were "over the line" for me. The detainee is supposedly the "20th hijacker".

 

One thing particularly interesting was how concerned the interrogators were with his physical health. The article notes that he was seen by doctors up to three times a day.

 

Here's the portion of the article I'm referring to.

 

Al-Qahtani’s resilience under pressure in the fall of 2002 led top officials at Gitmo to petition Washington for more muscular “counter resistance strategies.” On Dec. 2, Rumsfeld approved 16 of 19 stronger coercive methods. Now the interrogators could use stress strategies like standing for prolonged periods, isolation for as long as 30 days, removal of clothing, forced shaving of facial hair, playing on “individual phobias” (such as dogs) and “mild, non-injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking in the chest with the finger and light pushing.” According to the log, al-Qahtani experienced several of those over the next five weeks. The techniques Rumsfeld balked at included “use of a wet towel or dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation.” “Our Armed Forces are trained,” a Pentagon memo on the changes read, “to a standard of interrogation that reflects a tradition of restraint.” Nevertheless, the log shows that interrogators poured bottles of water on al-Qahtani’s head when he refused to drink. Interrogators called this game “Drink Water or Wear It.” Dripping Water or Playing Christina Aguilera Music: After the new measures are approved, the mood in al-Qahtani’s interrogation booth changes dramatically. The interrogation sessions lengthen. The quizzing now starts at midnight, and when Detainee 063 dozes off, interrogators rouse him by dripping water on his head or playing Christina Aguilera music. According to the log, his handlers at one point perform a puppet show “satirizing the detainee’s involvement with al-Qaeda.” He is taken to a new interrogation booth, which is decorated with pictures of 9/11 victims, American flags and red lights. He has to stand for the playing of the U.S. national anthem. His head and beard are shaved. He is returned to his original interrogation booth. A picture of a 9/11 victim is taped to his trousers. Al-Qahtani repeats that he will “not talk until he is interrogated the proper way.” At 7 a.m. on Dec. 4, after a 12-hour, all-night session, he is put to bed for a four-hour nap, TIME reports.

 

Invasion of Space by Female: Over the next few days, al-Qahtani is subjected to a drill known as Invasion of Space by a Female, and he becomes especially agitated by the close physical presence of a woman. Then, around 2 p.m. on Dec. 6, comes another small breakthrough. He asks his handlers for some paper. “I will tell the truth,” he says. “I am doing this to get out of here.” He finally explains how he got to Afghanistan in the first place and how he met with bin Laden. In return, the interrogators honor requests from him to have a blanket and to turn off the air conditioner. Soon enough, the pressure ratchets up again. Various strategies of intimidation are employed anew. The log reveals that a dog is present, but no details are given beyond a hazy reference to a disagreement between the military police and the dog handler. Agitated, al-Qahtani takes back the story he told the day before about meeting bin Laden, TIME reports.

 

A 24-Hour Time Out: But a much more serious problem develops on Dec. 7: a medical corpsman reports that al-Qahtani is becoming seriously dehydrated, the result of his refusal to take water regularly. He is given an IV drip, and a doctor is summoned. An unprecedented 24-hour time out is called, but even as al-Qahtani is put under a doctor’s care, music is played to “prevent detainee from sleeping.” Nine hours later, a medical corpsman checks al-Qahtani’s pulse and finds it “unusually slow.” An electrocardiogram is administered by a doctor, and after al-Qahtani is transferred to a hospital, a CT scan is performed. A second doctor is consulted. Al-Qahtani’s heartbeat is regular but slow: 35 beats a minute. He is placed in isolation and hooked up to a heart monitor, TIME reports.

 

Has Big Story to Tell: Over the next month, the interrogators experiment with other tactics. They strip-search him and briefly make him stand nude. They tell him to bark like a dog and growl at pictures of terrorists. They hang pictures of scantily clad women around his neck. A female interrogator so annoys al-Qahtani that he tells his captors he wants to commit suicide and asks for a crayon to write a will. At one stage, an Arabic-speaking serviceman, posing as a fellow detainee, is brought to Camp X-Ray for a short stay in an effort to gain al-Qahtani’s confidence. The log reports that al-Qahtani makes several comments to interrogators that imply he has a big story to tell, but interrogators report that he seems either too scared or simply unwilling, to tell it. On Jan. 10, 2003, al-Qahtani says he knows nothing of terrorists but volunteers to return to the gulf states and act as a double agent for the U.S. in exchange for his freedom. Five days later, Rumsfeld’s harsher measures are revoked after military lawyers in Washington raised questions about their use and efficacy, TIME reports.

 

[Dak]

Apparently, techniques like these are used to train the SAS to be resilient to torture in the event that they ever get captured. they are deprived of sleep, starved, forsed to stand for protracted periods of time etc. There is very little direct phisical abuse.

 

apparently, many of these big, burly SAS men are redused to tears by the training.

 

(source: variouse SAS documentarys, and personal correspondance that i believe to be at least resonably accurate)

 

so id disagree with the 'light' part of your " 'light' torture " comment, blike.

[paleolithic]

I found the part of the Christina Aguilara music interesting, I thought it was torture to listen to also but not literally, lol. Do you know why her? Is it something having to do with his view of women in society?

[revprez]

I just read a TIME magazine article which included specific details of intelligence gathering methods used on a detainee at guantanamo bay. It was very interesting.

 

The methods the US interrogators used would probably be considered "light" torture by most people. Although I'm an advocate of aggressive interrogation' date=' I cannot support torture. Naturally, I found myself questioning whether or not some of the methods they used were "over the line" for me.[/quote']

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

Resorting to undefined, decidedly extralegal modifiers like "light" and "aggressive" isn't the best way to launch an informative discussion on such an obviously sensitive issue. If we're going to accuse a nation of torturing detainees who have access to Qu'rans in 13 languages, personnel who will only handle Qu'ran only after applying white gloves in the presence of the detainee, and three square meals a day including lemon chicken, fruit, and rice and mushrooms, let's do ourselves a favor and pin down where the line lies and a means to judge if we've crossed it or not.

 

Rev Prez

[Tetrahedrite]

(Emphasis mine)

 

Resorting to undefined' date=' decidedly extralegal modifiers like "light" and "aggressive" isn't the best way to launch an informative discussion on such an obviously sensitive issue. If we're going to accuse a nation of torturing detainees who have access to Qu'rans in 13 languages, personnel who will only handle Qu'ran only after applying white gloves in the presence of the detainee, and three square meals a day including lemon chicken, fruit, and rice and mushrooms, let's do ourselves a favor and pin down where the line lies and a means to judge if we've crossed it or not.

 

Rev Prez[/quote']

Grrrrrr........

 

I hope you're not trying to say that the way these "detainees" are illegally and inhumanely treated is acceptable because they get "lemon chicken" for dinner......

[revprez]

Grrrrrr........

 

Right backatchya

 

I hope you're not trying to say that the way these "detainees" are illegally and inhumanely treated is acceptable because they get "lemon chicken" for dinner......

 

I'm saying there's little evidence that there is systematic abuse of detainees at Guantanamo. Whether or not I care what happens to these people is an entirely different issue.

 

Rev Prez

[Dak]

Does anyone know what the actual reason for holding them in guatamalo bay (as opposed to the US) was?

 

I heard that it was so that, being outside of the US, the detainees wouldnt be covered by the constitution and/or american legislature: ie the american captors wouldnt have to 'behave themselves' as much as they would were the detainees taken to america.

 

Whilst i am against playing the 'anti-american' card, i have to admit that the above does sound as if it could be mere america-bashing.

 

so does anyone know the actual reason that they were detained in guatamala instead of america?

[Tetrahedrite]

I'm saying there's little evidence that there is systematic abuse of detainees at Guantanamo. Whether or not I care what happens to these people is an entirely different issue.

Holding anyone against their will' date=' for an indefinite period, without charge, [b']is abuse[/b] and the USA and its allies should be ashamed of themselves. Whether or not the illegally held detainees are tortured is beside the point, it is is already a violation of human rights.

 

You can be damn sure that if an American was held without charge for an indefinite period there would be an uproar. If these people are guilty, why have some of them been held for nearly 4 years without charge? It really is disgraceful behaviour, something you'd expect in communist China, or, dare I say it, in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

 

I suspect it is attitudes like yours that makes the USA hated or disliked by the majority of the world, and why some of us laugh uncontrollably when we hear your leaders saying that the USA is the leader in promoting peace, freedom and human rights.

[revprez]

Does anyone know what the actual reason for holding them in guatamalo bay (as opposed to the US) was?

 

To place the detainees outside of the jurisdiction of US Courts. The Supreme Court decided last year that it did have jurisdiction (by virtue of statute) over terrorists held at Guantanamo and strongly suggested (by virtue [or lack thereof] of precedent) that it could also hold jurisdiction over detainees held overseas anywhere if they are held indefinitely [1].

 

I heard that it was so that, being outside of the US, the detainees wouldnt be covered by the constitution and/or american legislature: ie the american captors wouldnt have to 'behave themselves' as much as they would were the detainees taken to america.

 

A detainee on American soil is in the jurisdictional territory of functioning US Courts [2]. Put simply, if you don't expect dangerous enemy combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world to be mirandized before delivery into the courts, then its probably not a good idea to let the courts get a hold of them.

 

Whilst i am against playing the 'anti-american' card, i have to admit that the above does sound as if it could be mere america-bashing.

 

It is America-bashing. The Courts went above and beyond case law, statute and arguably the Constitution in finding jurisdiction over enemy combatants captured overseas and held there. Detainees aren't charged with a crime and tried, but then again the information they give can't be used in civilian trial--they weren't read their Miranda rights and the information was acquired without counsel. And that's the sole issue in Rasul v. Bush, whether civilian courts have jurisdiction over detainees.

 

If you can try them without losing on procedural grounds, I think an argument can be made that civilian American courts should handle most such detainees after we've expended them fully as intelligence assets. For one, not a large number of these are going to be escape artists--even the high profile ones; American corrections can handle their cases. Two, we could try them Southern District of New York, New York State and New York City, as well as the DC District and Washington DC proper; cases that would leave them in pretty nasty lockups for years. Three, there's something to be said about the political benefit of having lots of terrorists with pending court cases than none at all.

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

Holding anyone against their will, for an indefinite period, without charge, [b']is abuse[/b]

 

Why? Prisoners of war are held against their will for indefinite periods of time--and they are not charged or tried. But let's say we are going to try these people. What's so important about a charge? What about a trial date? American convicted of grand larcency can wait months before they get one. So what if a terrorist waits years? What's the difference between months and years, especially if these guys are eating and living better than they have in their entire lives?

 

...and the USA and its allies should be ashamed of themselves. Whether or not the illegally held detainees are tortured is beside the point, it is is already a violation of human rights.

 

Then you have a more expansive (I think foolishly so) view of human rights than I do.

 

You can be damn sure that if an American was held without charge for an indefinite period there would be an uproar.

 

Depends. If it were Ted Bundy or Jane Fonda, there probably wouldn't be any uproar. Your analogy is stupid. We're talking about enemy combatants taken off the battlefield, not some law-abiding Virginian plucked off his porch.

 

It really is disgraceful behaviour, something you'd expect in communist China, or, dare I say it, in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

 

Once again, a stupid analogy. In communist China or Hussein's Iraq, you'd expect summary executions.

 

I suspect it is attitudes like yours that makes the USA hated or disliked by the majority of the world...

 

I imagine that is why the US is hated by whatever amount of the world hates us. The question is whether I do care or should care. In a nutshell, I don't and I don't have to. That's a whole other thread, though.

 

...and why some of us laugh uncontrollably when we hear your leaders saying that the USA is the leader in promoting peace, freedom and human rights.

 

You can laugh all you want. Its not as if the United States really needs your approval or advice.

 

Rev Prez

[Tetrahedrite]

Why? Prisoners of war are held against their will for indefinite periods of time--and they are not charged or tried. But let's say we are going to try these people. What's so important about a charge? What about a trial date?

You will get yourself into a world of trouble if you go down this path. The USA purposely made sure that these people were not granted PoW status, as they would then be protected under the Geneva Convention. PoW status would've given the detainee rights the US does not want them to have. PoWs must also be released upon the conclusion of the war, which I certainly don't see happening. Under the convention they are also protected from humiliating and degrading behaviour, and must be protected against acts of "violence or intimidation", and against “insults and public curiosity” (Article 13). This is certainly inimical with the USA's objectives.

 

American convicted of grand larcency can wait months before they get one.

I think you meant charged, not convicted, and this is the important point. This person has been charged with an offence, and is therefore reasonably able to defend themselves against the charge. Only 3 out of around 500 detainees at Guant. Bay have been charged with an offence, the others are held in limbo.

 

So what if a terrorist waits years? What's the difference between months and years, especially if these guys are eating and living better than they have in their entire lives?

What terrorist? I believe that in the supposedly civilised USA you uphold the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". The only reason you think they are terrorists is that your president has told you so, and he is a proven liar. These people have not been charged with an offense, have not had a free and fair trail, and have not been convicted of anything. Until that time they are assumed innocent!!

In fact, some of these people have already been released after being held for no reason at all!!

 

Then you have a more expansive (I think foolishly so) view of human rights than I do.

The rights of an American shouldn't be any different to the rights of an Arab just because the USA has more money and military power.

 

 

Depends. If it were Ted Bundy or Jane Fonda, there probably wouldn't be any uproar. Your analogy is stupid. We're talking about enemy combatants taken off the battlefield, not some law-abiding Virginian plucked off his porch.

Even Timothy McVeigh, an American citizen and a convicted terrorist, was a) charged with a crime, b) given a free and fair trial, and c) was given the right to defend himself. The illegally held detainees have no such rights.

 

 

Once again, a stupid analogy. In communist China or Hussein's Iraq, you'd expect summary executions.

Remind me which 4 countries execute the most people in the world, I'll give you a clue the other three are China, Iran and Vietnam......

 

 

 

I imagine that is why the US is hated by whatever amount of the world hates us. The question is whether I do care or should care. In a nutshell, I don't and I don't have to. That's a whole other thread, though.

I'm sure you'll be a touch more interested when some people turn that hate into violence and start doing thing like...oh I don't know.....flying fully loaded passenger planes into two of the tallest buildings in the world!!!!

 

You can laugh all you want. Its not as if the United States really needs your approval or advice..

Absolutely true.

[Dak]

[the reason for holding them in guatamalo was] To place the detainees outside of the jurisdiction of US Courts.

The USA purposely made sure that these people were not granted PoW status' date=' as they would then be protected under the Geneva Convention.[/quote']could someone please clarify what these detainees were considered, if not prisoners of war or prisiners of the american civil legal-system?

[Tetrahedrite]

could someone please clarify what these detainees were[/i'] considered, if not prisoners of war or prisiners of the american civil legal-system?

The US calls them enemy combatants, and not PoWs because of the afore mentioned problem. The Geneva Conventions protects POWs from criminal prosecution for acts of violence committed on the battlefield against enemy combatants, and provides legal protections for POWs accused of crimes. This would be devastating for the Bush administration's policies and the detainees are therefore not called PoWs.

For more information have a look at this site.

[revprez]

You will get yourself into a world of trouble if you go down this path.

 

Why?

 

The USA purposely made sure that these people were not granted PoW status, as they would then be protected under the Geneva Convention. PoW status would've given the detainee rights the US does not want them to have.

 

They weren't granted POW rights because they're not legally POWs. Here's the Convention III. Show us how these combatants meet the standard where they rate Convention III protections.

 

I think you meant charged, not convicted, and this is the important point.

 

Yes, I meant charged.

 

This person has been charged with an offence...

 

You ignored my first point that POWs aren't charged. So clearly your problem isn't with that they are charged. Your problem is that these terrorists are held indefinitely, possibly after the war is over, with no process to resolve their status. Specifically, you want a civilian judicial process to resolve their status. Well, some will be resolved that way. Others resolved by military commission. And others will simply be released as they have. In short, they have one more avenue of resolution available than illegal aliens do.

 

...and is therefore reasonably able to defend themselves against the charge. Only 3 out of around 500 detainees at Guant. Bay have been charged with an offence, the others are held in limbo.

 

So what?

 

1. All detainees who aren't eventually released or still of intelligence value will ultimately end up tried in either in civilian or military court. The process is slow, specifically as the detainees' counsel challenge the due process protections (or lack thereof) afforded to the defendants.

 

2. Its not true they're held without charge. They're accused of being illegal enemy combatants. That is their official legal status for right or wrong, and the only question is what burden does the executive have to meet in order to maintain this distinction and whether or not terrorists have a right to such procedural protections as "bail hearings."

 

What terrorist?

 

Those in Guantanamo.

 

I believe that in the supposedly civilised USA you uphold the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".

 

Then I suppose you'd even object to holding terrorists if they refuse bail on their own recognizance. Get real.

 

The only reason you think they are terrorists is that your president has told you so...

 

Uh, really? In which case?

 

In fact, some of these people have already been released after being held for no reason at all!!

 

And people get their cases ACD'ed all the time. What's your point?

 

The rights of an American shouldn't be any different to the rights of an Arab just because the USA has more money and military power.

 

Why? There are international human rights and their are constitutional rights. Asserting the right to fall under the jurisdiction of US courts regardless of where you are is absurd; no other country affords to even American citizens.

 

Even Timothy McVeigh, an American citizen and a convicted terrorist, was a) charged with a crime, b) given a free and fair trial, and c) was given the right to defend himself. The illegally held detainees have no such rights.

 

Tim McVeigh isn't an illegal enemy combatant picked up on a foreign battlefield. He was caught and detained on American soil in the jurisdictional territory of functioniing civilian courts.

 

Remind me which 4 countries execute the most people in the world, I'll give you a clue the other three are China, Iran and Vietnam......

 

And the three top nuclear armed countries include Russia and China. What's your point? That killing bad guys is bad?

 

I'm sure you'll be a touch more interested when some people turn that hate into violence and start doing thing like...oh I don't know.....flying fully loaded passenger planes into two of the tallest buildings in the world!!!!

 

I'm sure I'm only interested in where they can be found and how swiftly and thoroughly they can be eliminated.

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

This would be devastating for the Bush administration's policies and the detainees are therefore not called PoWs.

For more information have a look at this site.

 

Do you even bother to read your own stuff? Point out where it says that POW status would be devastating to the Administration's detention policy.

 

Rev Prez

[atinymonkey]

They weren't granted POW rights because they're not legally POWs. Here's the Convention III. Show us how these combatants meet the standard where they rate Convention III protections.

 

Article 3 of Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War covers armed conflict not of an international character. This section covers the protections afforded by the Geneva Convention. Specifically it's subsection C and D that the discussions are revolving around. Section A, which covers torture of non combatants, has been avoided by not allowing physical torture to occur in Guantanamo.

 

Discussions around this area are moot, as the international courts have been unable to decide if the actions at Guantanamo bay are in breach of article 3. This is because they are based on a careful manipulation of methods in order to avoid the article, by the British security forces during the troubles in Ireland. The consequence of this is that in order to damn the activity's in Guantanamo the international courts would have to take onto account that these methods have been, and continue to be, used in counter terrorist situations across the globe.

 

Basically, it's a moral tightrope that many country's are forced to walk. A little further either side and the country becomes either a soft target or an oppressive regime. This just happens to be the most visible implementation of the method, it's not even the largest or longest running. In many ways, it's both surprising and commendable that it's visible.

[Dak]

legal or not, is it acceptable on moral grounds? mental torture is still pretty nasty to have to endure, and theres always the possiblity that the detainees are not forthcoming with information for the simple reason that they have none (or even that they werent terrorists in the first plase)

 

Is there any way in which an american (or british) soldure could be captured and treated in the same manner as the guantanamo detainees, with the captees justifying it in the same way america (or britain) has? I wonder wether that would be viewed as fair?

[Douglas]

The US calls them enemy combatants, and not PoWs because of the afore mentioned problem.

They are NOT "enemy combatants", they're "illegal combatants", belligerents....there's a difference.

[Douglas]

Is there any way in which an american (or british) soldure could be captured and treated in the same manner as the guantanamo detainees, with the captees justifying it in the same way america (or britain) has? I wonder wether that would be viewed as fair?

I suspect if an American or a Brit were captured, they'd be disemboweled prior to being decapitated.

[husmusen]

I think it's a bad idea to set your moral compass by the lowest common denominator.

Just because Al Quaeda would or would not do something doesn't make it ok for everyone else. (If OBL put his head under a train would you copy him?)

 

A second point is that since I understand many of the prisoners were captured by the Northern Alliance for US Dollar bounties, the odds are many of them wil have been fairly innocent nobodies who the NA saw as dollar signs. The NA are in my opinion no better than the taliban and maybe a bit worse(that's not saying anything great about the taliban BTW).

 

A third point is that even if there were some Alqueeda footsoldiers in there

(always possible) It's been three years, so all their information is out of date. I'm pretty sure Alqueeda has been "remoddled" a bit since the US and Co have been hunting them with a vengance.

Infact if Alqueeda didn't cycle codes and methods at least every three years they would(I suspect) be owned by every intelligence organisation from Australia to Zimbabwe.

 

A fourth point is that since torture of captives makes surrender of opposing forces far less likely(especially long term torture). Such a policy is probably costing US and British soldiers lives(at least in the larger skirmishes) as well.

If the people being tortured have out of date information that seems especially sad as those soldiers are then dying for no purpose at all.

 

A fifth point is that everyone I have talked to says that torture is not

effective at getting you reliable information. There is an interesting story about the Japanese use of torture against some Australian air officers in a book called "The Rats of Rangoon", basically after being tortured for a bit, the Aussies lied like crazy and after a while, they were saying what the Japs wanted to hear so the japs believed them.

 

I remember Tolstoy saying that if you allowed a morally detestable practice in pursuit of your own "righteous" cause. You weaken your defenses against others doing it to you.

I also get the strong impression that the US feels the need to do this to demonstrate it's "Power" and instead gives an impression of weakness.

 

At one point someone stated the the US didn't need to care about what others thought of them, that arguement is basically a form of the "were to powerful to have to concern ourselves with morality" argument. From my understanding of history that approach has usually preceded a fall for any nation that engages in it.

[Pangloss]

No, that's too simple. This isn't something that's as easily categorized as that. Labelling is easy. Getting at the truth is harder.

 

I agree that two wrongs never make a right. That justification is always invalid, in my book. (Though it's worth pointing out that that kind of thinking drives many opponents of the prisoner policies as well.)

 

But there are other reasons for keeping these people captive. This isn't a Disney movie or a Tolstoy epic. What's happening is progressive in nature, not regressive - clearly an attempt is being made to NOT repeat the mistakes of history. Some of it may be good, some of it may be bad. Over time we'll figure out which parts were bad and weed them out. The good parts we'll keep and progress forward to some better world.

 

An example of this is the use of the word "torture", such as in Husmusen's (very intelligent) post above. (As I say, that's an intelligent observation, and I respect everything in that post, but I'm just saying there's more to it than that.) There are no racks or braziers in Guantanamo Bay. For the first time (the *first* time), policies are being applied that happen to be in the gray area, somewhere between torture and non-torture. We will find out if they work, and we will find out if they crossed the line. Nobody knows the answers to those questions right now. Nobody.

 

Another example is the condemnation of the information being gathered in spite of the fact that nobody has this information except the government. You don't know if it's valuable or worthless. It might be valuable. It might be worthless. We will have to wait and see.

 

The model you want to look at here is not "two wrongs don't make a right", but rather the concept of letting our elected leaders do the job we elected them to do, lest we, in our inability to see the road as clearly as the driver, steer the bus right off the road. We spoke our minds before, we will certainly continue to remind the government of our general concerns during, and afterwards we assess and make any needed new rules.

 

That's how good government works. Not by second-guessing, without full and complete information, every decision made along the way.

[Pangloss]

By the way, I've said this before here and I'll say it again, even though I realize it's a rather unpopular position.

 

I respect George Bush for his willingness to put convention to the test. To see what will happen... "if".

 

- The rack is unethical? Okay, how about loud music? I don't know, let's find out.

- Hot coals and Chinese water torture is out? Okay, what about flushing their religious book down the toilet? I don't know, let's find out.

- Are there ANY forms of information-gathering that are not legal in the US that might still be productive in some way? I don't know, let's find out.

- Is "torture" EVER a valid means of information-gathering? I don't know, let's find out.

- How long can we hold these people without a trial? I don't know, let's find out.

- If we take extensive measures to make these people comfortable in terms of sanitation, nutrition and basic living conditions, but selectively deny them any comfort and/or abuse their religious beliefs, is this still an ethical thing to do? I don't know, let's find out.

 

This has been a hallmark of his presidency, for good or bad, and it's something you can find in almost every aspect of his political agenda, whether it be domestic, foreign, economic, or whatever.

 

We're going to find out.

 

It's not what I would do, but as a student of history, I make note of it, with a great deal of awe, and not a small amount of respect.

 

As I say, I realize this position is unpopular. It's unpopular because everyone likes to think they "know better", when in fact what they "know better" is actually just the same politically correct assumptions that everyone else is repeating ad nauseum. Say something often enough, and everyone starts to think it's the truth. Torture, and our general set of beliefs about it, is one of those things. Due process is another. The "correct" treatment of wartime prisoners is a third.

[Dak]

Is there any way in which an american (or british) soldure could be captured and treated in the same manner as the guantanamo detainees' date=' with the captees justifying it in the same way america (or britain) has? I wonder wether that would be viewed as fair?

[/quote']

I suspect if an American or a Brit were captured, they'd be disemboweled prior to being decapitated.

my point was thus:

 

Imagine the terrorists captured some us/uk troops.

 

imagine that they attempted to extract intelligence from them BUT that they said "we respect the human rights of the soldures. we will, therefore, treat them in a way which is an acceptable compromise between our need for intel and there human rights" and then used the same techniques that america used in guantanomalo.

 

What options would that leave us in the us/uk? I feel that, by our actions, we have condoned this course of action and would therefore have no option but to acknowledge that it would be acceptable for the terrorists to do this to our soldures in time of war -- and if it were done, then we could not say anything other than the terrorists respect for the human rights of their captives does them credit (we certainly could not condone their cruel treatment of our soldures).

 

Put simply: if they do this to us, then our preceedent will mean that they are unquestionably (from a political POV) acting humanitarianly towards their captives.

 

I just wonder, were the terrorists to capture our troops and treat them in this manner, wether all of the people who are currently supporting the prisoners treatment in guantamolano would be willing to quietly acknowledge the terrorists humanitarian treatment of our troops, and perhaps give a respectful nod of thanks in their direction for there willingness to respect human rights in a time of war?

 

If anyone answers no to the above, then i think that they should seriously rethink their stance untill they descide either that its acceptable to treat soldures (both ours and their's) in this manner, or that its not acceptable to treat soldures (both ours and theres) in this manner.

 

Personally i think no. by sighning the geneva convention, the us has acknowledged the truth of the spirit of the geneva convention -- the relevant bit in this case being the bit that says that soldures should not be subjected to torture in order to extricate intelligence. the us has contravened the spirit of the geneva convention by acting the way that it did; although, to its credit, the nature of the torture was an attempt to torture without violating human rights and being too nasty (an attempt which i feel has failed).

[revprez]

Article 3 of Relative to...

 

Blah blah blah. I asked where Convention III covers the combatants held at Guantanamo Bay. Your entire post is a very round about admission that they are not legally covered.

 

Basically, it's a moral tightrope that many country's are forced to walk.

 

Its only a moral tightrope for people who failing to even grasp the basics of criminal justice then abandon all sorts of commonsense. The prisoners at Guantanamo are distinct from the criminally incarcerated in that they were picked up on a field of battle and distinct from prisoners of war in that they do not fight under a flag party to any of the conventions on law in land warfare. And even so, is the conditions of not only their imprisonment but the process keeping them there significantly worse off than someone locked up at Rikers Island? The government does classify them as illegal enemy combatants--a criminal charge. They do hold them indefinitely as we do particularly dangerous persons without bail or prisoners of war for the duration of the conflict. We do have a process for adjudicating their status and fate--military commissions, and we're speeding them through that process just as quickly if not more so than what you'd expect for a well financed defendant who may spend months to more than a year behind bars before conviction or acquittal. And most importantly, they're being held in conditions that greatly exceed the comfort and security of Rikers Island.

 

So what are the critics really complaining about?

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

legal or not, is it acceptable on moral grounds?

 

The interrogation techniques? Why not? The three alleged abuses in the article are 1) that al Qahtani can't get any sleep because of the noise, 2) that he got wet, and 3) that he has to endure deliberate play on his phobias. Everything else--isolation for thirty days or more, poking and pushing, forced physical activity--these are all conditions that incarcerated criminals in the US face on a regular basis. I find it amazing that none of the critics can't come up a single confirmed case of a prisoner beating at Guantanamo; simply because its been in operation in two years and in American prisons beatings are an frequently tracked statistic.

 

Is there any way in which an american (or british) soldure could be captured and treated in the same manner as the guantanamo detainees, with the captees justifying it in the same way america (or britain) has? I wonder wether that would be viewed as fair?

 

You mean the terrorists would start accommodating captured Westerner's religious beliefs, feed them well during their captivity, and prosecute their own for abuses?

 

Rev Prez