TIME Details a Guantanamo intelligence gathering case study

[revprez]

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.

 

Show us this is the case, because the Americans insist that they are vetted extensively overseas before their shipped out to Guantanamo Bay and we know for a fact very few have actually been released.

 

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.

 

"Torture is ineffective" is frequently thrown around by people who know shit about either torture or interrogation techniques. First, there's little public literature for outsiders to support any conclusion. Second, there's the simple fact that highly effective security agencies around the world are habitual practitioners of techniques unfortunately labeled as "torture" (and also unfortunately prone to exaggeration in polite conversation) but do not rise to some level of physical abuse. So my question is what do you about interrogation?

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

- 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.

 

Yes, in fact the illegality of key means of collection amounts to the primary distinction between our clandestine foreign intelligence service and the domestic investigation agencies. You don't need a FISA warrant to do shit off American soil.

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

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.

 

Would we call that inhumane? Probably not, especially considering that in the real world terrorists ransom and murder captured soldiers and then deface their mutilated bodies in open forum. Would we like it? Would we like it even when our soldiers are taken prisoner by a humane adversary? Of course not. Especially if those soldiers had some information of value.

 

Rev Prez

[Dak]

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' date=' 2) that he got wet, and 3) that he has to endure deliberate play on his phobias.[/quote']Yes, those. arguably not very plesant things to do, thus making them a valid target of the question "is it morally acceptable to do".

Everything else--isolation for thirty days or more' date=' poking and pushing, forced physical activity--these are all conditions that incarcerated criminals in the US face on a regular basis.[/quote']but, as has been said, they are not criminals. Therefore (as already established by the us govournment), the rules of what can/cannot be done to criminals do not apply to the guantamolano detainees.

 

I know what you meant (at least i assume this is what you meant) -- that we accept that treatment for criminals, so why shouldnt we accept it for the detainees -- and the answre would be that, in addition to the above, the detainees are psycologically tortured, which is arguably (but not nessesaraly) unjustifyable. Criminals also have chanells through which they can profess, and have proven, their innocence.

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.

phisical abuse is not the issue here. psycological abuse is. it does the US credit that they attempted to forse the info out of the detainees without resorting to phisical torture' date=' but there is still the possibility that the psycological duress under which they put the detainees is unnaceptable.

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' date=' feed them well during their captivity, and prosecute their own for abuses?

[/quote']AND use the same psycological torture techniques on our troops as we used on theirs -- i expanded my point in my next post.

 

[edit]

 

Would we call that inhumane? Probably not, especially considering that in the real world terrorists ransom and murder captured soldiers and then deface their mutilated bodies in open forum. Would we like it? Would we like it even when our soldiers are taken prisoner by a humane adversary? Of course not. Especially if those soldiers had some information of value.

well, i get the feeling that others would be less inclined to refrain from hypocracy than you are, and would start screeming about how inhumanely the terrorists treated our soldures were they to do this.

 

put it down to my cynacysm in the human race if you disagree.

 

[/edit]

[atinymonkey]

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)

I can't really answer that tbh. In a Utopian society, no. I trust the judicious use if it in the UK simply because it's one of the least violent prevention methods that we have in a 'war' against terrorism. As with most people, I would trust my country to implement it properly, but no other. At teh end of the day, I'll just sit on the fence on this issue.

 

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?

It happens fairly often. But thats calling patriotism into the mix, which is already on the forefront of our American members arguments.

 

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.

No. It was a very specific post explaining which section the prisoners would come under, and why the US is not currently in breach. Article 3 protects the rights of the prisoners. It's not an admission, it was a statement.

 

Here is the advice prepared on request for the US state department by Oxford Council on Good Govenence. It's the international view of the situation by the leading world experts. See section 10:-

http://www.oxfordgovernance.org/fileadmin/Publications/LA001.pdf

or in html:-

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:Pc7NL0Rh9eUJ:www.oxfordgovernance.org/fileadmin/Publications/LA001.pdf

 

Of course, others argue that they should be covered by article 5 or 4. The US state department denys this as it would mean classifying the prisoners as POWs, which they claim that they are not.

http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=190

http://prisonerswithouttrials.net/analyses/Document.2004-04-19.5200516464

 

Its only a moral tightrope for people who failing to even grasp the basics of criminal justice then abandon all sorts of commonsense.

Morals are not law. It's a moral tightrope for those who understand morals, not to those that understand law.

 

The prisoners at Guantanamo are distinct from the criminally incarcerated in.........Rikers Island.

 

So what are the critics really complaining about? .

There you go, I simplified your statement for you. And the answer is, we are not discussing Rikers Island, Picards Island or Kirks Island. We aren't discussing the US domestic judicial system at all. We are discussing Guantanamo bay and it's treatment of foreign nationals. Mudding the waters by bringing US domestic legislation into direct comparison with Guantanamo bay is pointless. None of the foreign critics are commenting on the US domestic criminal policy, they are concerned only with the treatment of the foreign nationals at Guantanamo.

[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, with the captees justifying it in the same way america (or britain) has? I wonder wether that would be viewed as fair?

 

It happens fairly often. But thats calling patriotism into the mix, which is already on the forefront of our American members arguments.

 

it wasnt intended as an attempt to bring patriotism into the mix... it was intended as 'please make sure that your not just thinking "aah, its ok: they're only terrorists" ' (not aimed at anyone in particular)

 

do you know of any specific cases where americans/british have been treated in the same manner in which the 'bay detainees were treated?

[atinymonkey]

it wasnt intended as an attempt to bring patriotism into the mix... it was intended as 'please make sure that your not just thinking "aah, its ok: they're only terrorists" ' (not aimed at anyone in particular)

Ah, yes sorry about mistyping your name btw. It's been a lazy day. Good comeback

 

Perhaps patriotism was not quite the right word, but if it were not for patriotism it would not matter if the detainees were Iranian, English, American or Korean. On a moral level, country of origin is immaterial. You are quite right about the dehumanising aspect, once that is achieved then I think the moral line has been crossed.

do you know of any specific cases where americans/british have been treated in the same manner in which the 'bay detainees were treated?

Publicly? It's hard to find a similar example. Privately, yes I think it happens quite often. Ireland was a common place for solders to be stuck in a similar situation, protected from physical harm due to the bargaining potential they afforded. However, most cases I've have heard second hand. Could all be tall tails, which is what makes it hard to judge.

[revprez]

Yes, those. arguably not very plesant things to do, thus making them a valid target of the question "is it morally acceptable to do".

 

The question isn't valid. We wouldn't be arguing whether it is morally acceptable to do work if it involved some unpleasant activity--say re-alphabetizing the vitamin rack at your local RX. Civilized societies have long condoned a measure of unpleasant treatment of the incarcerated that is not obviously dissimilar in quality to what the Guantanamo detainees experience. If your not making a general case regarding how we treat convicts here and abroad, then your whole line of argument is hollow.

 

but, as has been said, they are not criminals.

 

Actually, that has not been said. Their is a process in place to adjudicate their criminal liability. It's patently obvious that they are being treated as criminals.

 

Criminals also have chanells through which they can profess, and have proven, their innocence.

 

As do the detainees. Your beef is that it is not the same process afforded to American convicts. Even that's not a reasonably accurate claim to make. The conditions--lengthy detention before trial, specifically-- are not terribly dissimilar to what illegal immigrants face on American soil.

 

...phisical abuse is not the issue here. psycological abuse is.

 

Physical abuse is the issue here. If you cannot make the case that detainees in Guantanamo are suffering physically worse than incarcerated felons on the mainland, what case do you have?

 

...it does the US credit that they attempted to forse the info out of the detainees without resorting to phisical torture, but there is still the possibility that the psycological duress under which they put the detainees is unnaceptable.

 

And you would have a case, if you could show that the pyschological treatment of detainees is on average worse than afforded to incarcerated American citizens. As it stands, you can't even cite a single confirmed case of psychological trauma uncovered by any of the investigations.

 

AND use the same psycological torture techniques on our troops as we used on theirs -- i expanded my point in my next post.

 

As I said, there's no reason to believe the outrage would outpace that initially felt over their POW status period. Nobody said being a POW was a pleasant way to spend time.

 

well, i get the feeling that others would be less inclined to refrain from hypocracy than you are, and would start screeming about how inhumanely the terrorists treated our soldures were they to do this.

 

I think you have no evidence to that effect, and considering our past experience with POWs who have been treated as humanely by the enemy (as far as "humane" went in the 19th and early 20th centuries) as we've treated our prisoners I doubt you'll find any evidence to that effect. That said, we live in a real world with real enemies with no real inhibitions about murdering captured American civilians, let alone any sense of decency in their treatment of combatants.

 

put it down to my cynacysm in the human race if you disagree.

 

I put it down to ignorance born out of too much TV, which is disappointing. As rigorous as we're willing to be about issues pertaining to mathematics and the hard sciences, it seems too many prefer mushy cliches to explain human behavior.

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

No. It was a very specific post explaining which section the prisoners would come under, and why the US is not currently in breach. Article 3 protects the rights of the prisoners. It's not an admission, it was a statement.

 

It's an admission that the detainees do not meet 3GC's criteria to be considered a prisoner of war. Whether you think that should be a case is a matter of policy, and that you and "the leading world experts" agree is of little concern here.

 

Morals are not law.

 

No, they are not. But to analyze further requires a legal analysis of the underlying moral debate; after all, the most specific objections you and Dak have raised regards the legal process and the disparity between the way we treat POWs and illegal enemy combatants. If you can't make a more general case to morally reconsider law controlling civilian prison populations, you're argument rings hollow.

 

There you go, I simplified your statement for you. And the answer is, we are not discussing Rikers Island, Picards Island or Kirks Island.

 

Then you have no point to make.

 

Rev Prez

[Pangloss]

One of the things that bothers me about this is the hypocrisy by the far left over the issue. They are essentially exploiting people's "Law & Order" knowledge pool. I mean, we all know that cases are always over in 42 minutes or less, right? And another case is solved every week. The bad guys always crack, and all it takes is just a HINT of the "good-cop, bad-cop" routine. Shake the table a bit, get angry, but that's it, and whammo, case solved! (And if you're a bad guy, boy, watch out for the old "would you like a cup of coffee" trick!) So people just assume that it must be EASY to make a criminal talk. You just MAKE them. That's all there is to it!

 

Baloney. The reality, even in our own justice system, is far, far different. One reason I have for thinking that is just the vast time difference between what I see in a television program and what I see on the news. It often takes months or even years to crack a case even when you have suspects.

 

What's happening to the people in Guantanamo Bay is likely not much more severe than what happens to typical suspects in America. But ultimately we will find out, one way or another. There are no secrets in government, folks. We will find out, and if lines were crossed, we will write new rules and establish new guidelines and do whatever else is necessary.

 

But we won't do it now, in the middle of the fight, and we won't do it for political gain. That would be wrong.

[atinymonkey]

It's an admission that the detainees do not meet 3GC's criteria to be considered a prisoner of war. Whether you think that should be a case is a matter of policy, and that you and "the leading world experts" agree is of little concern here.

For a second time, I will ask that your read the links. They are the statements from the Oxford Council on Good Governance. The US state department called on them to make a ruling on what the situation was with the prisoners held in Guantanamo bay. This is what we call a 'point of law': -

http://://www.oxfordgovernance.org/fileadmin/Publications/LA001.pdf

or in html:-

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:Pc7NL0Rh9eUJ:www.oxfordgovernance.org/fileadmin/Publications/LA001.pdf[/url

 

Undermining the Oxford Council is not a rebuttal of the findings. This ruling is substantiated, unlike your option. The issue is not solely based on the detainees not being POW, as the Conventions in article 3 cover them in the event that they are not classified as POW's. I suggest you justify your legal position. Try actually reading article 3 of convention 3 this time: -

 

http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/convention3.html

 

 

No, they are not. But to analyze further requires a legal analysis of the underlying moral debate; after all, the most specific objections you and Dak have raised regards the legal process and the disparity between the way we treat POWs and illegal enemy combatants. If you can't make a more general case to morally reconsider law controlling civilian prison populations, you're argument rings hollow.

Ok. I'll spell this out for you. I have made no objections whatsoever. Nether have I presented any arguments for or against the situation with the prisoners held in Guantanamo bay. What I have presented is the facts in relation to situation, as substantiated by the legal representatives of the global application of the Geneva Conventions. You are just arguing for arguments sake, and not paying the least attention.

 

What's happening to the people in Guantanamo Bay is likely not much more severe than what happens to typical suspects in America. But ultimately we will find out' date=' one way or another. There are no secrets in government, folks. We will find out, and if lines were crossed, we will write new rules and establish new guidelines and do whatever else is necessary.

But we won't do it now, in the middle of the fight, and we won't do it for political gain. That would be wrong.[/quote']

Well, even if the US wanted to affect the Geneva Conventions in relation to detainees in a state similar to Guantanamo I doubt that they would be able to. And as you say, the events in Guantanamo are all public and open to debate. Also, and this has been repeated throughout the thread, the events in Guantanamo are only controversial because of the visibility they have. I still maintain that it's a moral tightrope, and I agree that it should be constantly monitored. I can't really agree that there is a particular right or wrong time to make changes, but that's just my opinion. Still, at least people are open to discussion human rights and we haven't had anyone dehumanising the detainees just yet.

[revprez]

For a second time, I will ask that your read the links.

 

And for the umpteenth time I'll ask you to stop misrepresenting their authors and content.

 

They are the statements from the Oxford Council on Good Governance.

 

No shit.

 

The US state department called on them to make a ruling on what the situation was with the prisoners held in Guantanamo bay.

 

Bullshit.

 

This is what we call a 'point of law': -

http://://www.oxfordgovernance.org/fileadmin/Publications/LA001.pdf

or in html:-

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:Pc7NL0Rh9eUJ:www.oxfordgovernance.org/fileadmin/Publications/LA001.pdf

 

No, this is what we call a policy statement. It is not a legal brief.

 

Undermining the Oxford Council is not a rebuttal of the findings.

 

Its a challenge to your claim that these are "the leading world experts." Its obvious that they aren't the only voice on the matter; DOJ and State's lawyers have cleared the process. More importantly, I'm challenging your credibility outright. You're trying to pass off immaterial bullshit as findings of fact.

 

This ruling is substantiated...

 

No its not. It doesn't even exist. OCGG is not an adjudicating body. The link you offered is not to a brief and sure as hell isn't cited by anything. It critiques presents policy, gives an informal opinion on the legality of it, and offers an alternative (albeit a ridiculous one).

 

...unlike your option. The issue is not solely based on the detainees not being POW, as the Conventions in article 3 cover them in the event that they are not classified as POW's. I suggest you justify your legal position. Try actually reading article 3 of convention 3 this time: -

 

I've asked you to point out those sections of 3GC that cover the detainees. You've already admitted there is no such section.

 

Ok. I'll spell this out for you. I have made no objections whatsoever.

 

Also bullshit. Its your objection, whether you raise it or you resort to proxy.

 

Still, at least people are open to discussion human rights and we haven't had anyone dehumanising the detainees just yet.

 

Just demonizing the humane authority detaining them.

 

Rev Prez

[Dak]

Ah, yes sorry about mistyping your name btw. It's been a lazy day. Good comeback

thats cool, i can hardly complain considering how oftern i do it. tbh, i thought it was a subtle jibe at the fact that iv been misspelling guantamolano throughought this thread.

The question isn't valid. We wouldn't be arguing whether it is morally acceptable to do work if it involved some unpleasant activity--say re-alphabetizing the vitamin rack at your local RX. Civilized societies have long condoned a measure of unpleasant treatment of the incarcerated that is not obviously dissimilar in quality to what the Guantanamo detainees experience. If your not making a general case regarding how we treat convicts here and abroad' date=' then your whole line of argument is hollow.[/quote']criminals arent subjected to the same psycological hardships that the bay detainees are.

Actually, that [that the detainees are not criminals'] has not been said. Their is a process in place to adjudicate their criminal liability. It's patently obvious that they are being treated as criminals.

for atleast the initial part of their detention, the detainees were not considered criminals by the us govournment ¹

As do the detainees. Your beef is that it is not the same process afforded to American convicts. Even that's not a reasonably accurate claim to make. The conditions--lengthy detention before trial, specifically-- are not terribly dissimilar to what illegal immigrants face on American soil.

exept for the psycological torture.

Physical abuse is the issue here. If you cannot make the case that detainees in Guantanamo are suffering physically worse than incarcerated felons on the mainland' date=' what case do you have?[/quote']no, phisical abuse is not the issue here; there is very little indication that phisical abuse took plase. there is, however, an open addmision that psycological abuse/pressure/torure, call it what you will, took place in order to extract intel. the (completely valid) question is, 'was it justified?'

I think you have no evidence to that effect' date='[/quote']id just quickly like to point out that yes, i have no evidence to that effect, and that is why i worded it "i get the feeling that", rather than "i know" or "it is a fact".

I put it down to ignorance born out of too much TV' date=' which is disappointing. As rigorous as we're willing to be about issues pertaining to mathematics and the hard sciences, it seems too many prefer mushy cliches to explain human behavior.[/quote']again, i must insist that you stop making assumptions about me, seing as you have previously proven that the accuracy of your assumptions about me is approximately 0%. i donot even own a television. i dont, therefore, feel that 'too much tv' can be the cause of any aspect of me, least of all my 'ignorance'.

 

as for the actual comment itself: if by 'human behaviour' you mean ethics, then ethics is not a science which we can be rigourouse about; if you were refering to my assumption that many would be hypocritical about this issue, then id point out that i worded it as an opinion, not a fact, and not an oppinion that can really be invalidated (due to the wording, which was intentionally weak).

after all, the most specific objections you and Dak have raised regards the legal process and the disparity between the way we treat POWs and illegal enemy combatants.

actually, i asked for clarification of the legal aspects, which you and atm provided. my first actual argument started off with a dismissal of the relevance of the legal issues².

There are no secrets in government' date=' folks. We will find out, and if lines were crossed, we will write new rules and establish new guidelines and do whatever else is necessary.

 

But we won't do it now, in the middle of the fight, and we won't do it for political gain. That would be wrong.[/quote']one problem with this is the accusation that the US intentionally circumvented the geneva convention, which (the acusation holds) are the rules and guidlines that govourn this situation.

 

Im not saying that the accusation is true; but if it is, then one seriouse issue is the possibility that any new rules and guidlines put in place would merely be circumvented next time the situation arose, in which case intervening in the middle of the fight might arguably be the only way to suitably regulate this kind of thing.

[Dave]

I'd just like to remind you that whilst lively debate is fine, this thread is pushing the boundaries quite a bit. I've already closed one thread on the same grounds, and I don't want to have to close another; inevitably, warnings will probably follow. I'd rather not have it come to that.

 

Thanks.

[Pangloss]

Well on that note from dave, let me just say, then, that I respect your position on it, atinymonkey (and dak and others as well). Obviously we don't agree on the details, but I understand and respect where you're coming from.

 

Frankly I can think of far worse things in this world than people who are "overly protective of human rights". I'm willing to point out what I perceive to be flaws in that kind of position, but I'm glad there are people out there who are willing to take up those banners and stand behind them. We're far better off for it.

[atinymonkey]

I'd just like to remind you that whilst lively debate is fine' date=' this thread is pushing the boundaries quite a bit. I've already closed one thread on the same grounds, and I don't want to have to close another; inevitably, warnings will probably follow. I'd rather not have it come to that.

 

Thanks.[/quote']

Fair enough. I appear to be having trouble getting my points clear and concise enough, and I apologise for the disruption it seems to have caused.

 

Well on that note from dave' date=' let me just say, then, that I respect your position on it, atinymonkey (and dak and others as well). Obviously we don't agree on the details, but I understand and respect where you're coming from.

[/quote']

As I'm inclined to agree with your position (minus a few cultural points), I'll have to apologise for not making that clearer. It seems to have added to the general decline in your thread, which I'm sorry about as the topic is genuinely interesting.

[revprez]

Frankly I can think of far worse things in this world than people who are "overly protective of human rights".

 

As can I, but that doesn't mitigate the harm such people can do when they use what power they have to aid their fellow travelers. Let's be clear, the other side is advocating a dangerous course of action--releasing suspected terrorists or surrendering them to the forgiving auspices of civilian law--on a principle they can't consistently sustain. I don't respect atm or dak's views and I won't apologize for being abrasive on these issues, but I do apologize for airing out dirty laundry in someone else's living room.

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

Once again, why don't you actually press "enter" after each quote block? Parsing through a single paragraph with no spaces after sentences is annoying as hell.

 

criminals arent subjected to the same psycological hardships that the bay detainees are.

 

No, they're subjected to much worse. Prison rape isn't even raised as an issue by the Guantanamo critics.

 

for at least the initial part of their detention, the detainees were not considered criminals by the us govournment

 

So what? Police detain people all the time without charge. If you're a clever enough ADA you can turn a 24 hour detention into a week long one.

 

¹

exept for the psycological torture.

 

And what evidence is there that there is a pattern of psychological torture at Guantanamo?

 

no, phisical abuse is not the issue here; there is very little indication that phisical abuse took plase.

 

Physical abuse is at issue here precisely because there's very little evidence of even single confirmed cases, let alone a pattern. Its an issue because you're forced to make a hamstring case for mental torture when in fact you have no evidence that any detainee has suffered any psychological trauma as a result of any of the interrogation techniques. There you have it--a detention facility that is arguably more humane than the American prison system. In short, you have no point.

 

there is, however, an open addmision that psycological abuse/pressure/torure, call it what you will, took place in order to extract intel.

 

It is dishonest to equate legally defined terms like "abuse" and "torture," its even more so to think of them synonymously with "pressure." Finally, its the height of dishonesty to summarize the investigations as confirming a policy of using torture other means of abusive coercion when they have found none.

 

...the (completely valid) question is, 'was it justified?'id..."

 

Its not a valid question. It is asked in either unconscionable ignorance or out of dishonesty. The detainees suffer no worse than the American incarcerated. If you had any genuine criticism to make, you'd stick to complaining about their legal avenues compared to POWs or common criminals. Unfortunately, that doesn't carry nearly as much emotional weight with Americans as appealing to the fantasy of an innocent man laid up in Guantanamo suffering some nebulous, unsubstantiated abuse. Does it?

 

...just quickly like to point out that yes, i have no evidence to that effect...

 

Then you can move on. There's enough idle speculation in the other forums; strangers popping in with alleged special knowledge of Einstein's deathbed thoughts and theories that begin with "I have a feeling..."

 

i must insist that you stop making assumptions about me...

 

Then give me something to work with.

 

...as for the actual comment itself: if by 'human behaviour'...

 

By human behavior I mean just that, human behavior. And human behavior can be studied scientifically.

 

actually, i asked for clarification of the legal aspects, which you and atm provided. my first actual argument started off with a dismissal of the relevance of the legal issues

 

Which has little to do with what I said, and is given lie by your remark below.

 

².

one problem with this is the accusation that the US intentionally circumvented the geneva convention, which (the acusation holds) are the rules and guidlines that govourn this situation.

 

You have nothing to substantiate the accusation. Particularly you have no evidence that detainees like these have been treated as POWs. I dare you to examine the history of the European experience with terrorism out of the Balkans, Greece and North Africa in the past half-century? Tell me exactly how many POWs did they take in the 1980s?

 

Im not saying that the accusation is true...

 

You haven't even shown it to be grave or serious.

 

Rev Prez

[Dak]

Once again, why don't you actually press "enter" after each quote block? Parsing through a single paragraph with no spaces after sentences is annoying as hell.

for the last time, if you actually read my post before hitting quote, youll be able to understand it. for a start, the quotes will be left in so that you will be able to see what my comments are referring to.

 

ignoring most of the blatant shite in your post that has either already been adressed or is inherantly invalid:

Physical abuse is at issue here precisely because there's very little evidence of even single confirmed cases, let alone a pattern.

no, that is precisely why it is not an issue here.

 

"hey guys, no phisical abuse took place -- the non-existant phisical abuse is therefore inportant"

It is dishonest to equate legally defined terms like "abuse" and "torture," its even more so to think of them synonymously with "pressure."

my oppinion differs. i think it is dishonest to euphamise, which is what i was avoiding doing. "it was psycological torture, but it was justified for x reason(s)" would be perfectly acceptable to me. "it wasnt psycological torture, it was 'intel given under duress', so thats fine" is not IMO.

 

anyway, thats a purely sematic argument, which are generally pointless in the middle of a debate.

If you had any genuine criticism to make, you'd stick to complaining about their legal avenues compared to POWs or common criminals. Unfortunately, that doesn't carry nearly as much emotional weight with Americans as appealing to the fantasy of an innocent man laid up in Guantanamo suffering some nebulous, unsubstantiated abuse. Does it?

again with the assumptions. and again with the innacuracy. im one of the coldest, unemotionaly analytical people i know when im thinking about things (eg, wether the treatment of the detainees is justified or not), so the assumption that id even bring emotion into the equasion, as something to base my oppinions on or as an appeal to emotion, is wrong.

 

but hey, it seems fun. i think ill give the wild and unsuported accusations malarkay a go.

Then you can move on. There's enough idle speculation in the other forums; strangers popping in with alleged special knowledge of Einstein's deathbed thoughts and theories that begin with "I have a feeling..."

you took my quote wildly out of context -- again! bad revperz. NAUGHTY REVPREZ!!! stop it.

You have nothing to substantiate the accusation.

it wasnt nessesary to, given the nature of that conjecture. did you notice the clauses? 'if it is true' springs to mind.

[Dak]

To get the thread slightly more on topic (my apologies for my part in marring it), here are a few questions that i dont believe have been asked/addressed in this thread yet:

 

Should the prisoners have been granted POW/criminal status: im not talking legally here, im talking 'would it have been better all round to have confered that status on them'?

 

would the treatment of the prisoners have been more acceptable had they been tried and convicted in US civillian courts prior to their interrogation?

 

would other forms of coersion to extract intel have been more acceptable, such as bribery, 'truth-drugs' etc.

 

do you think that the US's humanitarian reputation has been damaged as a result of the detainees treatment. if so, should this be taken into account when desciding wether or not to treat future detainees in a similar manner.

[abeefaria]

Personally, if I knew that a bunch of limp wrists would cause problems with the detainment and treatment of terrorists, then I would keep captured enemies in a different country, the ones worth keeping at least. Those not worth keeping would be shot where they were caught or after an initial interrogation.

 

This is war people, and for those of you who can't stomach it, too bad. Let the men who know how to conduct warfare do their jobs. If you want to stand up with the enemy and defend them, then you become the enemy.

[john5746]

Should the prisoners have been granted POW/criminal status: im not talking legally here' date=' im talking 'would it have been better all round to have confered that status on them'?[/quote']

 

The men captured fighting in combat should be considered POW's. The 20th hijacker isn't a POW.

 

would the treatment of the prisoners have been more acceptable had they been tried and convicted in US civillian courts prior to their interrogation?

 

Military court?

 

 

would other forms of coersion to extract intel have been more acceptable' date=' such as bribery, 'truth-drugs' etc.[/quote']

 

If the men are indeed guilty, the torture is very acceptable.

 

 

do you think that the US's humanitarian reputation has been damaged as a result of the detainees treatment. if so' date=' should this be taken into account when desciding wether or not to treat future detainees in a similar manner.[/quote']

 

You cannot fight with one hand tied behind your back. Treatment of prisoners, handling of civilians, etc. should be decided based on principles, not public opinion - especially foriegn.

 

This "war" is very different from others. If these guys were freedom fighters fighting for Afganistan, once the war was over, they could return there after the treaty was signed. These guys signed up to be international terrorists. There is no reason to believe they will not be a threat if they are released.

 

This makes it very difficult to release them, so I think they do need to be tried - as a war criminal.

[revprez]

The men captured fighting in combat should be considered POW's. The 20th hijacker isn't a POW.

 

To what purpose? Does anyone actually read beyond the torture provision in 3GC? Properly treated POWs have extensive rights not only to humane treatment, but to congress amongst themselves, send and receive mail, and take pay from the Detaining Power.

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

Military court?

 

Just to be clear, the tribunals going on presently are to offer detainees a chance to show they qualify for POW status. Rasul v. Bush was very clear that the non-American captured deserved this much due process.

 

Rev Prez

[Dak]

You cannot fight with one hand tied behind your back. Treatment of prisoners, handling of civilians, etc. should be decided based on principles, not public opinion - especially foriegn.

on the other hand, for a country like america which is actively involved in persuing respect of human rights across the globe, it could be damaging for them to be seen, themselves, as breaching peoples human rights.

 

its definately something which should be taken into account imo.

 

To what purpose? Does anyone actually read beyond the torture provision in 3GC? Properly treated POWs have extensive rights not only to humane treatment, but to congress amongst themselves, send and receive mail[/u'], and take pay from the Detaining Power.

well, thats definately an argument against confering PoW status on them.

 

i assume that the mail is censored? even so, i can see it being a problem, as it would give the terrorists a clue as to what was going on.

 

-----------------------

 

i definately think that the US has handeled the detainees ineptly. across the world, people are accusing the US of violation of human rights, of intentionally seeking out loop-holes in the geneva convention which allowed them to contrevene there human rights... in a way, it is irrelevant wether the US has done so: for a contry which is preaching gloabal human rights, it is damaging to be seen violating them (even if the perseption is innacurate); and also the more the terrorists can daemonise the US (and the way in which they appear to have handeled the detainees definately facilitates the daemonising of the US), the easyer it is to recrute new terrorists to fight against the US.

 

even if the detainees treatment is justified (which im still not convinsed about), I think that the US should have handeled it in a way which included more instantly recognisable safe-guards to the detainees human rights, simply to avoid the numerouse accusations that the US have had to tolerate, justifyably or not, as a result of their treatment of the detainees.