It's official: US tortured Gitmo prisoner

[CaptainPanic]

What an awful and terribly sad state that we have sunk to.

 

I wonder how long it will be before a foreign prosecutor and some world court takes action on this.....which is likely if we don't do something about it soon ourselves.

I doubt it.

 

The international war crime tribunal in The Hague (Netherlands) surely won't do anything. The US Army is bigger than ours... Why does our army have anything to do with war crimes of the USA? I'll tell you:

 

It is simply because the USA has passed the "American Service-Members' Protection Act".

It authorizes the President to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court”. This has led opponents of the act to call it "The Hague Invasion Act". [wikipedia]

Personally, I find that very offensive. This is a court against war crimes, to uphold the human rights. The Netherlands has been an ally of the USA for a long time. And then this.

 

So now you know. That is why no US soldier will ever be arrested for war crimes.

[padren]

Suspected terrorists or confirmed combatant actually captured on the battlefield fighting against our troops as this individual was?

 

I am sure confirmed to a high probability, but what about the other part - confirming they are an immediate threat to life?

 

If they planted a bomb and are trying to kill you with it by not talking, to me that falls under self defense. However, just because they are confirmed as a combatant doesn't mean you can go on a little torturous fishing expedition.

[doG]

There are obviously limits we should observe and those set forth in the Geneva Convention are limits we have agreed to with other signers of the Convention even though organizations like Al Qaeda are not signatories to such. Torture itself is an ambiguous term defined broadly by those against torture and narrowly by those that favor it. Aside from all of that though we have no shortage of people that would come here and cry foul and rant about the treatment terrorists receive while keeping their lips sealed about the treatment our own citizens have suffered. Further, you will find some concession among those that favor the necessary means to obtain intelligence, a flexibility in their position while those that cry out against these methods give the impression of being totally inflexible. They concede nothing. They act like they could care less if 1000s are murdered as long as no one, not one soul, is ever waterboarded.

[SH3RL0CK]

 

Does anyone know what the legal definitions of a 'Power' and 'the Powers who are parties' actually are and how these definitions might or might not be applicable to a gang of thugs waging Jihad?

In other words is a terrorist organization actually a "Power"?

 

Similarly, did the US government ever formally classify the KKK as a "Power"? ......or the Black Panthers?....or the Weathermen?

I seriously doubt it, but admit that I really don't know for sure.

 

why would they? After all these organizations were not international in scope or activity, AFAIK. IMO, this is a significant difference. Furthermore, the US has not had to go to such extremes (i.e. invade Afghanistan) to combat these organizations.

So, if they did not classify them as a 'Power', it seems like some Judicial branch of the US (ie, Supreme Court) or a World Court would rule against Al Queda being classified as such.

In other words then there should be no legal precedent to legally permit this activity to occur.

 

I disagree with your assumption here. I can easily see a judge or court ruling AQ a "power" at least in the context of this clause of the Geneva convention.

 

 

I realize that this is the loophole that this mess is all about.

But I still don't believe that the portion of the Geneva Conv above was intended to apply to anything other than a "country".

 

Also, this is just one small part of the Geneva Conv and, as quoted in my previous post, we also have US Laws plus The UN Convention Against Torture, which we are a party to also, and bound by.

 

The way I read it, this part of the Geneva convention was indeed intended to apply to others than just a country. And since the US laws seem to use the Geneva convention as the basis, then I can see a strong arguement where the laws are obeyed in such that, by the Geneva convention article 3, the US is not obligated to comply against AQ until such time as AQ is compliant with the Geneva convention.

 

I agree there is a lot of information to go through, and lots of different ways to look at this and I am not a lawyer. Furthermore, I don't have a lot of time right now to research this, maybe I can do so this weekend (but I doubt it right now).

[ParanoiA]

Personally' date=' I find that very offensive. This is a court against war crimes, to uphold the human rights. The Netherlands has been an ally of the USA for a long time. And then this.

 

So now you know. That is why no US soldier will ever be arrested for war crimes.[/quote']

 

Try reading the paragraph just above the one you cherry picked.

 

The American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA) is a United States federal law introduced by US Senator Jesse Helms as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act and passed in August 2002 by Congress. The stated purpose of the amendment was "to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party[/i']".

 

Gee...looks like we left out quite a qualifier didn't we? The United States does not, nor any other country on the planet, have any obligation to concede to any construct they have not agreed to, or are a part of.

 

How about I make my own international criminal court right here on SFN and indict the leadership of your country? Now, are you going to blatantly defy International Criminal Court? Or will you bring your leaders to our court for prosecution? Court Date: 01/16/09 @ 1700. Be there or be convicted by default.

 

I think you're overblowing a simple declaration of sovereignty. That's all that really amounts to. If that language was not included, it would be an insult to our republic. We do not and should not capitulate to any power but by choice alone.

 

In fact, I even have a problem with the qualifier that we only reserve the right to protect our soldiers if we're not a party to the criminal court in question. I'd rather reserve the right to protect our soldiers from any action we believe is wrong. If a criminal court were to be hijacked or subverted by another power, I'd rather not pretend as if we're supposed to concede to that corruption. Our sovereignty should never be regulated by any external force, no matter how benevolent or benign it may seem.

[npts2020]

I didn't think you'd answer my questions before asking more of your own. It's very telling of those that cry out about the treatment of a terrorist while saying absolutely nothing about the 1000s of American lives they're complicit in taking. Sometimes what one is silent about is deafening over what they are screaming about.

 

OK, so for the sake of argument we say that a single American life is worth using the most extreme methods your values judge you may take for prevention. Why not just torture every individual you pick up on the battlefield or arrest in a suspected terrorist hideout? You never know what small piece of useful information a given individual might have.

[ParanoiA]

Ok, let me ask this: Which is worse...killing a baby or waterboarding a suspected terrorist?

 

I ask because we kill babies when we go to war. We kill little kids just like your own. And they witness horrors most of us will never see, just before they die. We kill women. We cause misery and trauma that will make you think twice before you elevate your values above Stalin's.

 

But waterboarding is crossing the line?

 

If we're willing to commit mass murder sanctioned by our people, then I hardly see why we should be having a hard time with this. Or, more appropriately, maybe we should question why we don't have a hard time with mass murder over waterboarding?

[DrDNA]

Torture itself is an ambiguous term defined broadly by those against torture and narrowly by those that favor it.

 

I don't believe that your statement is correct.

Not according to an agreement that we were a party to and bound by:

 

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE

and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading

Treatment or Punishment

 

The States Parties to this Convention,

 

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

 

Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

 

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,

 

Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975 (resolution 3452 (XXX)),

 

Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world,

 

Have agreed as follows:

 

Part I

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

 

Continues.............

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Also.........

US revises definition of torture

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Dan Eggen, Washington Post | January 1, 2005

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/01/01/us_revises_definition_of_torture/

 

''It has been US policy from the start to treat detainees humanely and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions or under the spirit of the Conventions where they do not apply," said White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy.

 

In the new memo, Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin said torture may consist of acts that fall short of provoking excruciating and agonizing pain and thus may include mere physical suffering or lasting mental anguish. His opinion is meant, according to its language, to undermine any notion that those who conduct harmful interrogations may be exempt from prosecution.

Edited January 16, 2009 by DrDNA
Consecutive post/s merged.

[bascule]

I didn't think you'd answer my questions before asking more of your own. It's very telling of those that cry out about the treatment of a terrorist while saying absolutely nothing about the 1000s of American lives they're complicit in taking.

 

Where? In the magical fantasy land in your head? Can you demonstrate how torture has saved one American life, let alone thousands?

[ParanoiA]

So you're still not going to answer his question? Or are you just going to keep answering with other questions?

 

I mean, there's obviously a threshold here and no one is comfortable with it. Too bad. Even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You can choose a ready guide, or some celestial...oh crap, never mind.

 

Anyway, I can say with relative certainty that I would torture the hell out of anyone here if I thought I had a snowball's chance in hell of getting the truth out of you - to save my son. To save someone else's? Maybe not. To save 10 someone else's? maybe so.

Edited January 16, 2009 by ParanoiA

[john5746]

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

 

So this means what? Can we yell at them? Can we pound on the desk? Will that scare them too much? Can they be questioned for only 1 hour at a time? Do they need to eat 3 full balanced meals a day and get at least 8 hours of sleep?

 

I would consider waterboarding as torture, but sleep deprevation needs more work, IMO. It depends on how long it is used. There needs to be some carrots and sticks to help get these guys to cooperate. No need to get brutal, unless our backs are truly up against the wall, then all bets are off.

[DrDNA]

Anyway, I can say with relative certainty that I would torture the hell out of anyone here if I thought I had a snowball's chance in hell of getting the truth out of you - to save my son. To save someone else's? Maybe not. To save 10 someone else's? maybe so.

 

I would too.

Absolutely and without any reservation.

But if I did it, I would knowingly and willingly accept the ramifications of my actions and be held responsible for those actions (assuming I was dumb enough to get caught).

 

Is the government permitting, organizing, colluding, conspiring, allowing, ordering, condoning, encouraging, or performing the act the same thing as you or me doing it?

[bascule]

So you're still not going to answer his question?

 

There's no way to answer his question. He may as well ask how many pirates we need to throw into a bonfire to stop global warming. The question itself is ludicrous and cannot be answered.

 

In reality there is not a direct relationship between number of Americans saved from terrorist attacks to amount we have to torture a given "terrorist" any more than there's a relationship between the number of pirates and global warming. Pretending there is one is simply absurd.

 

Furthermore, torture is not a reliable technique for extracting information. Victims of torture will say what they think their torturers want to hear in order to get the torture to stop.

 

Or are you just going to keep answering with other questions?

 

Yes, I'm going to keep up my vain attempt to point out how flawed his mental model of the world is.

 

Anyway, I can say with relative certainty that I would torture the hell out of anyone here if I thought I had a snowball's chance in hell of getting the truth out of you - to save my son. To save someone else's? Maybe not. To save 10 someone else's? maybe so.

 

Do you think the US should torture kidnappers to reveal the whereabouts of their hostages? What's acceptable? Should we waterboard them? How about bamboo under their fingernails? Hacking off fingers, toes, limbs without anesthesia?

[DrDNA]

So this means what? ........

............

There needs to be some carrots and sticks to help get these guys to cooperate. No need to get brutal, unless our backs are truly up against the wall, then all bets are off.

 

It means that this is the convention's definition of Torture.

 

The part you left off means that the current US administration has publicly stated that it will adhere to this definition and to the spirit of the convention.

 

It is what it is.

 

I'm not in love with it.

But to be perfectly honest with you, I think that it is attractive and I kind of like it.

I just wish that the Gov would say what they mean and then do what they say.

It seems contradictory; don't you agree?

[ParanoiA]

There's no way to answer his question. He may as well ask how many pirates we need to throw into a bonfire to stop global warming. The question itself is ludicrous and cannot be answered.

 

And that's an answer. You win a brownie.

 

Furthermore, torture is not a reliable technique for extracting information. Victims of torture will say what they think their torturers want to hear in order to get the torture to stop.

 

This line of logic doesn't play out. Torture would not have stood the test of time, century after century, updated methodologies and evolved tactics if it always resulted in feigning intelligence. I imagine it's more like the stop smoking patch, works for some, not for others. Instead of characterizing humans as cardboard cutouts that all react the same, we can be flexible enough to utilize the best technique per individual.

 

Do you think the US should torture kidnappers to reveal the whereabouts of their hostages? What's acceptable? Should we waterboard them? How about bamboo under their fingernails? Hacking off fingers, toes, limbs without anesthesia?

 

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure. I am sure that your position is too absolute to be of any value other than unlimited self sacrifice to the benefit of the enemy. However, I value humanity as well. More than likely I'll fall back to the reality of war and the horrors I seem perfectly ok with, since we're not debating whether or not dead babies are acceptable collateral damage. Waterboarding does seem preferable to many of the vietnam images I've absorbed.

 

Is the government permitting, organizing, colluding, conspiring, allowing, ordering, condoning, encouraging, or performing the act the same thing as you or me doing it?

 

I think so?? I guess I'm not clear on the question. Sounds like you want to punish them, just like we would agree to accept our own punishment. Something about that just doesn't settle right.

 

I do agree though, I would accept the consequences with zero regret.

[doG]

I don't believe that your statement is correct.

Not according to an agreement that we were a party to and bound by:

 

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE

and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading

Treatment or Punishment

 

So, is it cruel, inhuman or degrading to put someone on a pork-only diet until they talk? If yes for some people and no for others then explain why it is not ambiguous. Obviously most will agree that shoving bamboo slivers under someone's fingernails is torture for anyone but as soon as you switch from physical methods to mental methods no one wants to agree what is and what is not torture. Those against it define it broadly and claim anything that causes mental anguish is torture and those tolerant of it disagree.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Furthermore, torture is not a reliable technique for extracting information. Victims of torture will say what they think their torturers want to hear in order to get the torture to stop.

 

Can you prove such a claim?

[iNow]

Furthermore, torture is not a reliable technique for extracting information. Victims of torture will say what they think their torturers want to hear in order to get the torture to stop.

Can you prove such a claim?

 

 

 

http://feingold.senate.gov/ruleoflaw/testimony/johnson.pdf

Defenders of U.S torture policy claim that torture and cruelty, while repugnant, are a necessary means to a virtuous end: keeping America safe. This argument, however, is premised on the mistaken notion that torture actually works. As FBI, military intelligence and CIA professionals have reported, using torture yields more faulty information than actionable intelligence. We know this to be true from more than 20 years of providing care and rehabilitative services to torture survivors. They have told us that they would have said anything to end the torture. Torture and cruelty elicit unreliable information and damage our national security.

 

 

 

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a788004686~db=all

People generally believe that torture is effective despite strong counterclaims by experienced military interrogators and intelligence experts. This article challenges us to reexamine some of our basic assumptions about torture by presenting four psychological factors—primarily errors and biases in human judgment—that help account for this mistaken popular belief.

 

 

 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1171369

This Essay addresses the theoretical debate on torture in an empirical way. It urges that as part of our evaluation of the merits of torture, we take a shrewd look at the quality of information brutal interrogations produce. The Essay identifies widespread belief in what the author identifies as the "torture myth" the idea that torture is the most effective interrogation practice. In reality, in addition to its oft-acknowledged moral and legal problems, the use of torture carries with it a host of practical problems which seriously blunt its effectiveness. This Essay demonstrates that contrary to the myth, torture and the closely related practice, torture "lite" do not always produce the desired information and, in the cases in which it does, these practices may not produce it in a timely fashion. In the end, the Essay concludes, any marginal benefit the practice offers is low because traditional techniques of interrogation may be as good, and possibly even better at producing valuable intelligence.

 

 

 

http://www.stormingmedia.us/45/4541/A454174.html

As a part of the response to the Al Qaida attacks on 11 September 2001, the United States found itself having to answer many difficult questions regarding its action in the Global War on Terrorism. One of the most contentious was the use of torture against captured enemy fighters. The United States, a strong proponent for humanitarian law, soon found itself criticized for its treatment of detainees. As a result, commentators and politicians have had endless debates about interrogation techniques and the legal applicability of international law and treaties to a nonstate enemy. The central research question derived from these issues is: Is torture a viable tool for use in achieving goals as outlined in the 2006 National Security Strategy? Interrogational torture was examined from the following standpoints: legal, effectiveness, and ethical. Results showed that torture is wrong. The next step applied the analytical results against the ethical decision-making triangle and also concluded that from the three standpoints torture was wrong and not a feasible means of achieving the United States' national security objectives.

 

 

 

There are many more available if the above are deemed inappropriate for any reason.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

A good article here which summarizes many of the key issues:

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

Given the overwhelmingly negative evidence, the really interesting question is not whether torture works but why so many people in our society want to believe that it works. At the moment, there is a myth in circulation, a fable that goes something like this: Radical terrorists will take advantage of our fussy legality, so we may have to suspend it to beat them. Radical terrorists mock our namby-pamby prisons, so we must make them tougher. Radical terrorists are nasty, so to defeat them we have to be nastier.

 

Perhaps it's reassuring to tell ourselves tales about the new forms of "toughness" we need, or to talk about the special rules we will create to defeat this special enemy. Unfortunately, that toughness is self-deceptive and self-destructive. Ultimately it will be self-defeating as well.

Edited January 17, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive post/s merged.

[DrDNA]

Torture would not have stood the test of time, century after century, updated methodologies and evolved tactics if it always resulted in feigning intelligence. I imagine it's more like the stop smoking patch, works for some, not for others. Instead of characterizing humans as cardboard cutouts that all react the same, we can be flexible enough to utilize the best technique per individual.

 

I'm pretty sure that this is how it works (and has worked for centuries):

You ask me questions.

I don't tell you anything.

You hurt me.

I don't tell you anything.

You hurt me some more.

You continue to hurt me until I tell you what you want to hear.

You give your report, filled with all the made-up crap I told you so you would stop hurting me, to your superior officer and everybody (but me) is happy.

Meanwhile, Bin Laden sits comfortably in his cave in the mountains somewhere between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

 

I don't see anything evolutionary in it at all.

 

But the 3 tried and true proven methods to get anything out of anybody is sex (if it is a male), cash, and cash.

 

Sorry Para. I was editing out the rock science part when you were (obviously) posting. I should have left it alone.

To everyone else: What I edited was: It isn't evolutionary and it isn't rock science.

Edited January 17, 2009 by DrDNA

[ParanoiA]

You left out the part where we follow up on the info you told us, and discover you're full of shit and then drag you back. Otherwise why in the hell are we torturing you if we're just going to kick up our feet and watch the game when we're done?

 

Like you said, it's not rock science. Did you really believe that no one thought of this? All of these centuries no one ever thought...."hey, ya know, they could just lie to us"?

 

Give me a break. Once again it feels like we're playing with logic that is really beyond us, that has been far more fleshed out with those who are professionals, who are involved in this kind of work for a living.

 

It reminds me of this guy I met that fixed a toaster and now he thinks he's an electrician. I know it seems all simple and easy...which is exactly why you'd be better served to approach with caution. Torture isn't rock science, and it isn't '24' or 'The Unit' either.

[bascule]

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure. I am sure that your position is too absolute to be of any value other than unlimited self sacrifice to the benefit of the enemy.

 

Actually, my position got codified into the US Constitution. You might want to check the Eighth Amendment.

 

What happens when the person you're torturing is *gasp* innocent? Whoops...

[DrDNA]

Like you said, it's not rock science. Did you really believe that no one thought of this? All of these centuries no one ever thought...."hey, ya know, they could just lie to us"?

 

Give me a break. Once again it feels like we're playing with logic that is really beyond us, that has been far more fleshed out with those who are professionals, who are involved in this kind of work for a living.

 

It reminds me of this guy I met that fixed a toaster and now he thinks he's an electrician. I know it seems all simple and easy...which is exactly why you'd be better served to approach with caution. Torture isn't rock science, and it isn't '24' or 'The Unit' either.

 

Bingo. That's exactly the problem as I see it.

We're not talking toasters here and it's not a TV show.

 

And no, I don't have any faith in the professional torturers.

I seriously doubt that they have "the truth the real truth and nothing but the truth", my, your, or anyone elses' best interests, but their own at heart.

I'm sure that they are quite good in their chosen field of endeavor, but we are talking professional torturers here.

Edited January 17, 2009 by DrDNA

[npts2020]

Most of those who use torture, realize that the thing it is most effective for is intimidation of more than just the one who is tortured. Why do you suppose that most democracies around the world are against it and for the most part only dictatorial countries use it? How does this fit into the plan to win hearts and minds of the world? Again I will ask (for a third time), if torture is an effective means of gathering vital information, why not just torture every individual you pick up on the battlefield or from a suspected terrorist hideout?

[The Bear's Key]

(Please migrate this to "It's official: US tortured Gitmo prisoner" Delete afterwards. Thanks to whichever mod/admin does it)

 

 

I mean' date=' there's obviously a threshold here and no one is comfortable with it......

 

Anyway, I can say with relative certainty that I would torture the hell out of anyone here if I thought I had a snowball's chance in hell of getting the truth out of you - to save my son. To save someone else's? Maybe not. To save 10 someone else's? maybe so.[/quote']

I don't really think you get what's at stake. It's perfectly fine if you tortured someone to get the whereabouts of your kid. Pretty understandable reaction, even if I wouldn't do it. That said, let's compare why it's ok for you but not for the government to torture.

 

You must face consequences. The government doesn't.

 

Let's continue.

 

Torture would not have stood the test of time, century after century, updated methodologies and evolved tactics if it always resulted in feigning intelligence.

Our safe vantage point from modern civilization seems to obscure your perception.

 

The "century after century" periods of time did not have a reliable and fair system of justice, much less for torture. Witch hunts, persecution, lynch mobs were somewhat the norm and extracted confessions matched identically what the torturer demanded to hear.

 

Is this what you balance the strength of your convictions on?

 

Or perhaps you mean historical wars. Where they might've brutalized the captured soldiers, yet their extracted confessions were near impossible to verify in time since covert investigations would've been far slower and more dangerous than nowadays, as they lacked our electronic and satellite technology.

 

Our civilized governments have evolved into what they are because we have abandoned the OFFICIAL dehumanization of people. When such occurrences happen on the street, it's one thing. But when it happens by official declaration of the government, it's an entirely different matter and (unfortunate) outcome.

Edited January 17, 2009 by The Bear's Key

[DrDNA]

""Alberto Mora, who served as General Counsel of the Navy under Donald Rumsfeld, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that “U.S. flag-rank officers maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq–as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat–are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.” We owe it to our troops to protect them from terrorist attacks by not conducting torture and we owe it to our forefathers to uphold the American principles that they passed down to us.""

The American Public has a Right to Know That They Do Not Have to Choose Between Torture and Terror”: Six questions for Matthew Alexander, author of How to Break a Terrorist

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/12/hbc-90004036

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

American Revolutionary War 1775-1783

US Total Killed 25,435

US Wounded 4,435

 

World War One 1914-1918

US Mobilized 4,734,991

US Killed 53,402 (combat) 63,114 (non-combat)

US Wounded 204,002

US POW/Missing 3,973 / 3,350

US Total Casualties 364,800

 

World War II 1937 — 31 Dec 1946

Total US Mobilized 16,112,566 + 215,000 Merchant Marines

US Killed 404,997

US Wounded 670,846

Remaining US MIA 78,000

 

Korean War 25 Jun 1950 — 27 Jul 1953

US Mobilized 5,720,000

US Killed 54,246

US Wounded 103,240

 

Vietnam / South East Asia 4 Aug 1964 — 29 Mar 1973

US Mobilized 8,744,000

US Killed 58,253

US Wounded 53,303

 

"Operation Desert Storm" - 1991 17 Jan 1991 — 11 Apr 1991

US Mobilized 540,000

US killed 269

 

"Afganistan" - November 2001 - Present Day

US Casualties 5582

 

"Operation Iraqi Freedom" - March 2003 - December 2008

US Casualties 35,143

 

What for??

 

http://www.taphilo.com/history/war-deaths.shtml

(I didn't intend to slight the significant contributions of other countries here)

Edited January 17, 2009 by DrDNA
Consecutive post/s merged.

[Pangloss]

This thread seems to have gotten rather bogged down in overgeneralization and agenda-pushing from both sides.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Pangloss