I first heard it on NPR and then sought out more details about some American citizens who are on trial in Iraq for abuse and torture.

The article is HERE




They claimed that the U.S. government raided their offices and took all of their documentation and paperwork relating to their affairs. This issue concerns me greatly. I believe that the U.S. military has a history in Iraq if dealing with mercenary help in their prisons and have used them in the WoT already.

In this story here there is proof of the US Attorney's policy on non-government "contractors". They claim that those people will be dealth with in civilian courts here in the U.S. If that is the case why are these three men not only being left in Iraq, but their issue seems to have been buried.



I think that some important questions are raised here:

First, Why is this situation not headlining the frontpages and the newstickers across the country? Americans are being tried for crimes in Iraq that they claim were ordered by the U.S. government. We had more interest in that kid who got the caning in Singapore...

Second, what are the likelihoods of a group of mercenaries going to Iraq, setting up shop, and conducting their own, private WOT without any government sponsorship?
I hardly see this are reasonable. PErhaps if they were working early on to fetch the rewards for Saddam and his sons...but grabbing people with no bounties on them? Seems profitless and dangerous to me....

Finally, if these men can and do prove that they were on government orders can we still justify our position as "liberator" and "moral savior" of the Iraqi people?

edit: the usual typos..and I bet i missed mroe of them

First, Why is this situation not headlining the frontpages and the newstickers across the country? They are probably (sensibly) waiting for actual evidence.

Second, what are the likelihoods of a group of mercenaries going to Iraq, setting up shop, and conducting their own, private WOT without any government sponsorship? With a $50m reward for Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida leadership? I believe the odds are extremely high, though it isn't a "private little war on terror" per se...it is called bounty hunting.

Finally, if these men can and do prove that they were on government orders can we still justify our position as "liberator" and "moral savior" of the Iraqi people?

It is unlikely that Idema, the soldier who was denied re-enlistment and sent to prison for wire fraud, was working under orders coming directly from Rumsfield, at his makeshift jail cell, where he tortured cab drivers for information. (the first link is rather far down the page. Idema sued FOX)

Edited to add: Forgot to explain the different names...Jonathan Idema also goes by Jack and Keith.

I had read about Idema's prior history. I think that is common with mercenaries.
My question about their reasons for being there stem from the fact that they have been there for a long time since the "deck of cards" was put to rest.

Is there really THAT much profit in hunting people for our government?

If so I have a problem:

If it is not OK for people to hunt willy nilly through the streets of Iraq in order to find bounties is it not also problematic that we PUT the bounties on the heads of people in the first place? Strange how we take a "wild west" approach to intelligence and policing in Baghdad but then play bashful when people act like cowboys.

I think it must be obvious that I'm not a fan of the bounties and that I think the government knew more about what was going on than it admits. It just shocks me that no one cares about our behavior over there. We talk about building bridges, democracies, happy new worlds ......and then we don't serve to emulate the world we claim we want to build for others.

I understand the need to do intelligence work but really here..it seems that every major find of an Al Quaida operative was done by natives to the region.
Yeah, we got a tip and found Saddam..but I bet that tip didn't come from someone at Abu Grahib.

If any proof ever emerges I'm certain you will see plenty of headlines. The 'mainstream' media licks its chops at the prospect of casting bad light on Bush.

Truth is there are quite a few mercenaries seeking the $50 mil bounty. Does the gov't use them in some ways? I bet they do. Will they disavow it? I bet they will. Does that bother me? Not in the least.

I don't think it is a prudent idea to try and fight a 'sensitive' war. Something tells me that is not a winning strategy. Sometimes you have to get down and really really dirty when you're in a life and death struggle. Does that mean we might cross the line on occasion? Yeah, probably. Ends justify the means? In many cases, yes.

We all have our own definitions of 'going too far'. I believe the vast majority of Americans define that limit similarly. Such as Abu Grahib. We get the sense the motive there was personal enjoyment and so we decry it. And prosecute it.

These things have a way of shaking themselves out. All you need is to have a bit more faith in the American people and their values.

Since when has it not been American policy to torture and to promote torture when the people at the top think it's a wise move? Remember the torture memos floating around the Bush Administration? And he's not exceptional. The thing that startles me most about my fellow Americans is that this stuff really surprises some people.

But well, it surprised me, too, until I stumbled across www.soa.org.

I didn't know the Society of Actuaries published studies on torture. Care to post a link?

heehee. Sorry!

SOA Watch

I get in a hurry sometimes!

I had heard about the SOA because we get our best South American despots from there.
I had not known their manual was released to the public....

I guess Passion51 is correct..if there is proof these guys were working for the State Department it will come out (if it can). I still point you to the many and varied threads about the liberal or conservative bias of the media however.... The best arguments there would dispute the medias' desperate desire to malign George Bush.

I guess this topic should find itself in the Philosophy forum. Do we think it is possible to win over our enemies using the same type of torture from which we claim to be saving them?
I'm not denying that, if it is life or death, we need to get intel any way we can.
But, as the news keeps showing, we are finding our enemies in Al Quaida everywhere BUT in Iraq and yet we keep on keeping on about the terrorists there....
It seems unlikely that a cell of terrorists is, right now, working out of any place in Iraq intent on attacking us here at home. So should we be torturing cab drivers just in case?

There is one thing that continues to disturb me about the narrow path of the prosecution of suspected Abu Ghraib participants. Three international reports (Amnesty International, the United Nations and the International Red Cross) detailed accounts of the abuse as far as 18 months prior to the release of the now infamous pictures.

The possibility for the abuse to exist on its own even while there was also a "Chain of Command Report" Rumsfeld ignored seems remotely plausible until you find out that prisoners incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay (enemy combatants who had absolutely no contact with the outside world or Abu Ghraib prisoners) gave almost identical accounts of specific methods of torture right down to the battery cables as did their counterparts in Abu Ghraib.

That single issue makes it VERY hard to for ME to believe the problem was limited to a few bad apples in Iraq. A more likely source was Major General Geoffrey D. Miller who had frequent communication with the highest ranking DOD officials and who was tapped to "Gitmo-ize" Abu Ghraib.

A Canadian news source is one of many that reported the similarities in possibly unlawful interrogation techniques. One of many sources: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/abughraib_halton.html

Of course, the recent comments by an Abu Ghraib participant's attorney could be easily dismissed as "posturing". (He hinted at serving Rumsfeld with a subpoena.) However, just as little stories turn into big ones, I've got to say, the treatment of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib smells much more systemic than it does spontaneous.

From the beginning, there was reason to believe that the torture wasn't isolated or done without orders. Shortly before the Abu Ghraib stories broke, a recently-freed Guantanamo Bay prisoner described similar (although not so harsh) abuse. What he claims to have suffered was, in fact, identical to what the first photos show Abu Ghraib detainees enduring. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/conte...-name_page.html

Update:

Military Discount:
(Become a Marine and Enjoy the Benefit of Torturing and Murdering Prisoners at a Maximum Price of Three Years in Prison!)

According to SignsonSanDiego.com (also according to NPR on 8/23/04), the maximum penalty faced by a Marine charged with the death of a man whose demise was described gruesomely in this manner by Signs on San Diego, "You come in and you get seven broken ribs and you lie around and defecate yourself for three days. Somebody grabs you and drags you around by the throat, and perhaps that breaks your throat[...]That's the kind of details we're working under."

Ralou says: This man may well have been involved in the kidnapping and abuse (see, I don't have to call it torture, either) of Jessica Lynch. It doesn't matter who the man was. His murder, as well as the murders of every prisoner killed in US custody without a trial, was wrong, and the punishment does not match the severity of the crime, which has thus far been the pattern of these trials. Yet from the status-quo defenders we hear that bad things happen and justice is being done.

Yes, bad things do happen. No, justice is not being done. This is why America must become a member of the International Criminal Court to regain our lost (and rightly so) credibility in the world's eyes...and in our own.

This is not a few bad apples facing swift justice. This is a widespread pattern of abuse that not only stretches through Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, and indeed in many other nations, but also stretches across time. This isn't an aberration, this is typical tactics, and has been for (at very least) decades.

Now that we have failed in our efforts to stop proliferation, now that our top officials have admitted that our borders our porous, essentially defenseless against a lone, determined attacker with a suitcase bomb or bioweapons, consider this: The brother or sister or mother or son of a prisoner tortured to death in an American prison obtains a weapon of mass destruction and is intent on revenge.

Do we want to trust that our CIA, FBI, or local police can stop him or her? Maybe one of these three groups can. But how many can they stop? How many are we going to allow these tactics and this failure of justice to create? Every single avenging relative or friend of one of these murdered prisoners increases the odds that we will suffer another (possibly worse) catastrophic attack.

It's time for America to change its policies. The Cold War is over. This war isn't against nations, it's against individuals. How many furious, grieving individuals do we want to fight?


and the Washington Post is reporting abuse of teenagers hidden from the Red Cross


http://www.washingtonpost.com/

This is my opinion: We need to join the ICC because we have a widespread pattern of abusing justice.

What do you think?

September update:

I haven't had time to Google a more middle of the road site but I did see Seymour Hersh on CNN last night touting his new book "Chain of Command - the Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib".

From what he said in his interview he indicated he doesn't believe the conspiracy went as far as Rumsfeld and Cheney but does state that "Free Rein" was given by Rumsfeld and Cheney to those just below them to use methods NOT in accordance with the Geneva Convention both at "Gitmo" and in Iraq.

Link: http://www.selvesandothers.org/view142.html

The link between identical accounts of explicit details of the torture from detainees who had no way to communicate between "Gitmo" and Iraq seems to indicate systemic, top to bottom procedures.

Doesn't the fact that Cheney and Rumsfeld gave anyone free rein to act outside the Geneva convention make them war criminals? Does anyone know the law on this? I'm almost positive it does.

First, Why is this situation not headlining the frontpages and the newstickers across the country?

December 2004 update. It looks like the torture controversy is heating up again. And it looks like FINALLY Dubya just might be the one to get burned (or at least singed) . New information has been obtained by the ACLU that gets closer to debunking Bush’s claim that he never authorized torture.


So, now the WH is blaming Rummy. It's starting to look like the Secretary of Defense may be the latest sacrificial goat.

More info here - ABC News

Yes, lets weep for the poor terrorists. Look, if Rumsfeld told the troops at Gitmo to use "sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc." then he was doing it to protect YOU. I don't understand. They blow up our buildings, they cut off the heads of civilians and we are supposed to show sympathy for when they have to stay awake for a couple hours?



Yay! Lets do some more Bush bashing because it is so constructive. "Torture"? Are we kidding here? Does anyone believe that our prisoners of war receive such nice treatment?

The bottom line is that if President Bush or Sec. Rumsfeld ordered these techniques, than it was for the sole purpose of stopping terrorist attacks and protecting me and my family. Its easy to criticize the government. And you know, the people doing the criticizing now are the same people who when an attack occurs would bash the government for not doing eveything in their power to stop a terrorist attack.

Wow. I didn't realize you were so chummy with Bush and Rummy. So, you are saying that they should be no limits on physical abuse, and that interrogators should be allowed to do anything and everything to people (who, by the way, have not been found guilty, or even tried, for that matter) short of killing them? Oh, wait - oops, that happened, too...my bad.

It also proves more lies on the part of Bush&Co. But I guess lying to the American people is OK, too, as long as it "protects" us from the harsh reality?

I'm sure our POWs don't live long enough to be tortured, largely due to our country invading theirs without provocation.

Iraq did not attack us. Attacking Iraq is not going to "stop terrorist attacks" and protect you or anyone else. In fact, the opposite is far more likely to be true.

Bush&Co crowing about 3 years of "no attacks" reminds me: with that basis for comparison, shouldn't you congratulate Clinton for 7 or 8 years of "no attacks"? Come on, terrorists will attack us again regardless of how many Iraqis we kill.

I'd like to see this narrow-minded, tunnel-vision administration let the intelligence community do its work of gathering intelligence in order to protect the country, rather than browbeat them into reporting only what Bush&Co want to hear. I think Bush's claiming that he will be able to "protect" us (correction: he is the ONLY ONE who can protect us) from another terrorist attack is foolish and unrealistic anyway. Duct tape, anyone?

But I guess it's OK to intimidate and hamstring the agency that should be gathering the intelligence to protect the country from terrorism, because Bush is trying to protect you.

Fine, you believe torture is OK because Bush says so and criticizing it is somehow subversive. But Bush is not my daddy and I don't have to believe him "because he said so." I have a mind of my own and my b--s detector is going off....LOUDLY.

-- The 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed 6 and injured 1,000
-- The 1993 Mogadishu firefight that killed 18 U.S. soldiers
-- The 1995 Oklahoma City terrorist attack on the federal building by American extremists that killed 168, wounding several hundred others
-- The 1995 Saudi Arabia car bomb that killed 5 U.S. military personnel
-- The 1996 Khobal Towers bombing that killed 19 U.S. soldiers, wounding 515
-- The 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 231 citizens, 12 Americans and injured 5,000
-- The 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen that killed 17 U.S. sailors, wounding 39

Just a thought.

Simple answer - YES! It happens to be international law Leder, something called the Geneva Conventions. They were put in place in part so that US Soliders would be offered humane treatment while in captivity provided we afforded the same deal to our enemies. While you may be perfectly ok with breaking international law to suit your desires I am not and the majority of the country is not ok with it either. Ask John McCain what he thinks about treating prisoners in a humane fashion.

Should our troops be serving the terrorists milk and cookies? No, absolutely not. However, there are rules in place and these rules exist for a reason. You remember those pictures that came out during Abu Ghraib of prisoners with black hoods on that became such an eye sore in the media and got more of our troops killed by extremists? I hope you do. If this latest news from the ACLU is true then you can thank George W. Bush for that personally.

Do some people realize what is at stake here? Can anyone even begin to comprehend it? Al-Queda wants every single one of us dead. TIME magazine from NOV.14th shows that they plan on using NUCLEAR WEAPONS to destroy our cities. Do you know what would happened if a nuclear device was detonated inside our borders in a city like New York? Freedom, liberty, all gone. GONE. National state of emergency, martial law. Yet all you care about is the poor terrorists who would be happy to kill you and everyone you know if they had the chance. Good, you cry me river about the murderers and criticize Bush&Co. Next time when we want information from the terrorists we will ask very nicely "with a cherry on top."

I am not giving unlimited power to torture people. I do not advocate electrocution, or use of a weapon or anything like that. But you are going to tell me that keeping them up past their bedtime is unreasonable? You're damn right our POWs dont live long enough to be tortured!

You want to argue the reasoning for going into the Iraq War? Fine...go satisfy your own beliefs with constant rhetoric. But this is the War on Terror. How soon we forget how 3000 American lives were taken on 9/11. I saw the buildings on fire and i saw those buildings fall that morning. I could see it right across the river. Don't talk to me about provocation.

yes, i will congratulate Clinton for not acting and allowing Al Queda to fully develop even after the World trade center bombing, embassy bombings and the bombing of the US Cole. I will thank him for destroying our intelligence agencies and hurting our military. Al Queda formed and grew strength under his watch and he did nothing!

I dont know how you believe our intelligence officers or interrogators get information to protect you. Maybe you believe the terrorists simply spill their guts... i dont know. But what i do know is that if they put a barking dog in front of the poor murderer...they are doing it to protect this country.

EDIT:


Oh yea! I forgot about Al Queda's pledge to adhere to the Geneva Conventions.

Yea the guy stood on a box with a black hood. Boohoo. How many Americans do you think were saved because of the information that he dished out?

The reality is that sleep deprivation and sensory limitation is hardly torture. Please take the time to ask people like Senator McCain what torture is. How about asking people that suffered at the hands of Saddam what torture is!

Furthermore, nearly all troops on the ground suffer. You get little sleep, meals come cold and hardly pallitable, and rest is few and far between. Where's my 3 course meal? HA! I didn't get a soft bed while I was there... guess I should call CBS.

ALSO-the people in Prison weren't captured walking down the street. These men are nearly always armed combatants or were aiding the insurgency/terrorist regime. We don't walk around rousing up every Iraqi man and dragging them to jail...they didn't get there by accident.

Finally, Cube Jockey, to answer you mention of the Geneva conventions in your previous posts... the reality is that American prisoners are NOT treated according to Geneva convention, and I'm pretty confident that a black hood or two didn't really hurt anyone. I find it hard to digest that a little rousing of prisoners for information seems appalling. If we had video of gruesome beatings or electrical torture I might jump on your ship...

Let's get down to brass tax. The men in these prisons had information that may have saved American lives. We weren't beating them, depriving them of sustinance, or harming anything other their egos. To say that capture and torture of American civilians was caused by the alleged "prisoner abuse" is absurd. These people have been trying to blow us up, shoot us, etc since the first day we arrived. Simply put, their cowardess dictates that terrorist acts like picking up unarmed civilians is far easier than kidnapping Marines, and they know what kind of reaction it gets out of the American people....

I think we should reach deep into our hearts and think about what we'd do if we were doing the interrogation. If you knew American soldiers' lives were at stake (maybe your brother or neighbor), is a little sleep deprivation such a big deal? The prisoners are battle scarred, hardened zealots that won't break with a little pleading and incessant politeness... think about it.

Well, let’s see. From the horse’s own mouth when the photos of Abu Ghraib were made public: “This does not represent the America I know”.

What, exactly, is gained by torturing Iraqis who may or may not be affiliated with terrorist groups?

What possible good can be gained from this:

There are better, more effective ways than torture to obtain information. Using torture diminishes those who employ it.

Sadism and psychopathy are not acceptable in my mind, regardless of whether the country is at war, and it shames me that my country and many of those in it see nothing wrong with brutalizing other human beings.

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Neitzsche

"Yes, lets weep for the poor terrorists." This statement makes no sense in the context of this discussion. Unless, of course, you happen to think that not torturing someone is the same thing as "weeping for them."

"Look, if Rumsfeld told the troops at Gitmo to use "sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc." then he was doing it to protect YOU." No. I do not condone the torture of others, even if it somehow led to information that was useful. Your argument here is specious. You're making an emotional appeal to our sense of safety. Such scare tactics are the common purview of the Bush administration; and, evidently, their many repeating units across the nation.

"They blow up our buildings, they cut off the heads of civilians and we are supposed to show sympathy for when they have to stay awake for a couple hours?"
So, you have evidence that all the prisoners we have tortured have done these things? Please, share this momentous news with us! I'd like you to provide some specifics, please. If we are torturing people who have already done these things, we are condoning torture purely for revenge... yuck. If they haven't, or we don't know, then it's torture to get info. So, when did we become some tin-pot dictatorship in Central America?!

"The bottom line is that if President Bush or Sec. Rumsfeld ordered these techniques, than it was for the sole purpose of stopping terrorist attacks and protecting me and my family. Its easy to criticize the government. And you know, the people doing the criticizing now are the same people who when an attack occurs would bash the government for not doing eveything in their power to stop a terrorist attack."

Not really. Perhaps a few idiots will criticize measures taken now, then turn around and criticize them for not doing enough later. But in real life, it's more complicated than that. You sure have a love for these simplified black/white arguments!

It is evident from your post here that you are missing what dissent is really about; it is the lifeblood of the republic; without it democracy withers.

You speak of protection, but the only way to maintain any semblance of the high moral ground (I know, I know, this is a can of worms - we lost this long ago for other reasons) is to NOT get into the mindset that our liberties can be 'defended' by adopting the tactics of our enemies. Can we only defend against terrorism by becoming terrorists? If you can understand even a bit the idea that reciprical, eye-for-an-eye violence does not solve problems, perhaps you will understand how so many of us feel our nation is making such grievous errors under the short-sighted Bush administration.

Most likely none whatsoever. It has been revealed that 70-90% of the people who were detained in Abu Graihb were arrested in sweeps or mistakenly altogether (meaning they were probably not terrorists), so unless the American method of policing Iraq has COMPLETELY changed in the last year, I find it pretty ridiculous to think that they are not still picking up innocent people. Of course, I suppose innocent people being tortured isn't a problem as long as they are not Americans right?

Oh, that's right, I forgot. Intelligence services the world over have found that torture is often unreliable and inefficient in extracting information. Of course, none of that matters as long as we are protecting Americans right?



So howabout strangulations and beatings? Are those acceptable? Because according to the report these were administered.

I think the near-sighted point you make about adopting the tactics of our enemies is that our intelligence agencies and military have used these tactics for decades...maybe even centuries... for one simple reason; they work. Our liberties aren't necessarily the concern at this point, yet the lives of our soldiers and of the American people are.

Reciprocal, eye-for-an-eye violence isn't what we're discussing here. We're talking about mild interrogation tactics. These men weren't electrocuted, beaten, starved, beheaded, etc. If we were talking about reciprocity, in my mind, that would mean rounding up Iraqi civilians and broadcasting their torture. Picking up Insurgent leaders and broadcasting their beatings, beheadings, and drag their bodies into the streets.... this would be reciprocity. We're talking about keeping people awake and putting hoods on their heads... come on.

I just have a question...how do we do it then? Please UJ and quarkhead. Enlighten us at AD on how we extract sensitive information from terrorists. We can't keep them up past their bed time and we cant have dogs bark at them and we can't put a hood on their head. Maybe we can smother them with kindness?

I have to call the first sentence complete hogwash. What reports are you reading? This is ridiculous. The policy strictly dictates that people detained be aiding or a part of the insurgency. How many people in stateside prisons will admit to being guilty? Where did this information come from? ? ? Did your information come from someone walking around Iraqi prisons asking about their guilt??? ....

If this was true... there'd be reports on every major news network around the globe.

I don't condone actual torture for any reason, as you can never be sure of the accuracy or timeliness of the information.

But........

sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc.....

Guess I better get me one of those Gitmo lawyers.......the army does this to me! They do even worse to attendees of Survival, Escape, Resistance and Evasion School (SERE). I don't condone torture....so when charges of actual torture emerge....get back to me......

If torture is the only option we have for extracting information from accused terrorists, then I propose the US must do the following:

1. The US must unsign itself from the Geneva Conventions. Remaining part of the Geneva Conventions muddies the water with regard to the status of who can be tortured.

2. The US must repeal the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. If "cruel and unusual" punishment were no longer proscribed, then torture would be "legal". Any ambiguity as to what torture was okay and what wasn't okay would be removed.

As I'm basing my support for mild torture when needed completely on viewing the first few seasons of "24" please don't take this too seriously. I'm not defending torture. But as to these suggestions:

1 - As has been discussed ad nauseum, Geneva Conventions apply to combatants adhering to rules of war. Not murderers who kill journalists, aid workers and election judges at random.

2 - US constitution now applies to terrorists, even when in Iraq? This is pushing the limits as well. Would the 4th amendment would apply there, we need a warrant to search suspected insurgents' homes? Should we enforce a drinking age minimum of 21? Does the equal protection clause apply in regards to Kurdish issues? I don't think that this analogy works.

Of course, it's awfully convenient to declare a "War on Terror" but then not be required to follow the rules of war. But, yes, you are correct in that there's an ambiguity with regard to the Geneva Conventions. That's why I proposed the US unsign itself from the Geneva Conventions so that those ambiguities would no longer be salient. An equally good proposal is to amend the Geneva Conventions in such a way that ambiguity is removed. Something like: if you're an non-uniformed Islamo-terrorist or insurgent type or just happen to be Arab with anti-US leanings or are in the wrong place at the wrong time, then you can legally be tortured according to the Geneva Conventions.


Again, the point is the ambiguity should be removed. There is ample precedent about civil rights being extended to non-US citizens outside of the US. I'm not sure where "cruel and unusual" punishment falls in that light. Perhaps, someone with more legal, particularly Constitutional, experience than I could comment.

Your only response is to use sarcasm and hyperbole to make my position seem ridiculous. Yes, indeed, let's "smother them with kindness!" Please! Let's look closer:

1. We aren't talking about extracting "sensitive information from terrorists." We're discussing the treatment of suspected insurgents. Regardless of whether Joe's statistics are accurate, it is certainly at least understood that we are talking about suspects, and that a certain number of them are innocent. Further, a certain number of them may be guilty and yet have no useful information. Your describing them as terrorists, however, lends an emotional punch to your argument. Even though it isn't true, it seems obvious that it resonated with you, and you are hoping it will resonate with others who hear it put so simply.

2. I saw the pictures. I'm sure you saw them too. If this is stuff which you view as merely keeping "them up past their bed time and we cant have dogs bark at them and we can't put a hood on their head," then, and I'm sorry to do this, but I must question some of your values. Given the fact that some of these people are surely innocent... why does their not being American citizens make a difference? We are all human. This country will only work as a democratic republic as long as the RULE OF LAW is our bedrock value when it comes to all our dealings, internal and external.

I'm sorry, but your last sentence is an insult and a mockery of an opposing opinion. I have certainly not tacked on such underhanded sarcasm - "oh, Leder, given your position, perhaps we should torture them to death in the public square!" "Perhaps we should smother them with hate! I mean, come on, man.

You raise a good question here, though - how do we do it? I don't have all the answers. I think we do it through the RULE OF LAW, through a civilized and organized judicial process. But my inability to come up with some golden solution, does not mean by default that your position is correct. It is illogical to assume that because a critic does not necessarily have a detailed solution to a given problem, that their criticism is therefor invalid and wrong.

Ok, a couple of things to adress here. First and easiest is aevans...



Well, it's coming from the International Red Cross, but the number was actually determined by the American authorities in Iraq. Granted, the number is old (obviously), but it is still relevant as it applies to policing methods during the invasion and after the formal declaration of hostilities. I can't believe people are still debating these numbers, they came from U.S. army intelligence. Here's a standard
article.:



There, believe me? It can't be more obvious.



That is an OUTSTANDING evasion of the challenges I brought to your arguments leder. First, I said that torture is INEFFECTIVE. Don't believe me (it's hard to tell when you just ignore what I say entirely)? Well here's another little affirmation.



Now, that ties directly into the repeated (and frankly disappointing considering where they are coming from) statements along the lines of:



Well, as I quoted earlier, the FBI memos indicate that prisoners were BEATEN... not placed in a hoodie, but BEATEN. They were also STRANGLED. Does that also fall into the camp of annoyances and luxuries?

It all comes back to Leder's original question though, which I think highlights an EXTREMELY FRIGHTENING disconnect between humanity, and, well, people like lederuvdapac. Torture doesn't work. The military has agreed not to do it. The people here have said that they disapprove of the sorts of things being done (BEATING prisoners for example.) Yet in spite of all that, nobody really seems to care. I mean, they're only Arabs, right?

I know you were being sarcastic, leder, but believe it or not, "smothering with kindness" has worked in the past - quite well, in fact.

For the record, the abuses go beyond “keeping prisoners up past their bedtime”. Even the FBI had qualms about the tactics that were being sanctioned. Torture is not effective and is counterproductive.

And, just FYI, "mild torture" is an oxymoron.

There is no ambiguity. The US Constitution is for the United States of America. Not Iraq, not Afghanistan, not Kuwait. Find another piece of law - the Hague, treaties, whatever. Otherwise, every country in the world would be governed by this - Article 1, Section 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

I am no Constitutional or legal scholar, however I believe that doing things to non-US citizens while on US property outside of the US has jurisdictional and Constitutional implications. I was hoping that someone with this background would comment (unless you're just such a person, carlitoswhey).

You are quite correct. However, should we abandon the rule of law and the respecting of the rights of the accused when dealing with non-citizens, we are guilty of (and will be perceived to be guilty of) hypocricy, at best. It is my view that we have a obligation to follow more rigidly than most nations the conventions, treaties, and rules which govern our external military endeavors. Will the world long stand for a nation which constantly touts its freedoms, its democratic nature, while treating other nations ruthlessly and without regard to fundamental human rights? They will not. I understand that this "rogue nation" act is perhaps the bedrock of the neoconservative ideology. I am telling you, though, that it is flawed and will lead to world war, and the shortening of the lifespan of this American 'empire.'

I feel the sarcasm is warranted given the apparent lack of reason. I have already established that i do not advocate "torture" such as electrocution and weapons...but sleep deprivation and other mental exercises are NOT unreasonable when the lives of American citizens and soldiers areon the line.

1. No we ARE talking about extracting information. Extracting insurgent holdouts, weapons depots, plans of attack, and residences of leaders. And i do not think that the US military would just take random people off the streets for no apparent reasons and interrogate them. If they had a weapon on the fields of Afghanistan shooting and American GIs...there is that famous probable cause. The prisoners at Gitmo have nothing to do with Iraq...they have to do with Afghanistan and the War on Terror. And they are terrorists, murderers, whatever you want to call them.

The fact is that we can never know how what info is gathered because letting the public know jeopardizes the government's ability to prevent it. They wouldn't do it if it wasn't effective.

2. And the only way it remain a democratic republic is if it is protected. I dont remember any prisoners being cut with knives or glass...i dont remember pictures of prisoners being bled or poisoned. I remember prisoners sitting on a box with a hood and i remember prisoners in questionable positions. Thats not torture. The elementary school bully probably does worse.

My last sentence is not meant to mock but to bring up the point of what is it that is allowed to go on. How do we extract information? We can't do this, we can't do this, we can't do this. So WHAT IS THE SOLUTION. And you are right, you don't have the answers because it is a fantasy that there is some rule of law solution. No man on a sworn jihad will give up information easily. How do you think the CIA operates and gets information worldwide? This brings into questions your entire view of how things are done.

Look...you may think i enjoy this or something...that may be your impression. But i dont. I wish we didnt have to keep prisoners up past 11:30, i wish we didnt need to have to deal with terrorism or islamic fundamentalism. But the fact is we have to. We must face reality and realize that we dont live in this ideological perfect world.



Do you know who was allegedly "beaten"? Do you know if that man sent an RPG into a humvee full of American soldiers? Do you know if that man knew where Zarqawi was or Bin Laden? No, you don't know. The military has agreed not to torture and they have not done anything of the sort.

You obviously can't answer the questions of...if we cannot deprive them of sleep and have dogs bark at them...what can we do? How do you get a person to divulge information when they have nothing to lose? What if an American life was at stake? hundreds? thousands? Your family?

Ah, with this I can agree. My admittedly pedantic point is that the US bill of rights is for the US, and that's it. I've had conversations with many anti-war folks who have raised similar issues to logophage, and thought it was worth clarifying the application of our constitution. Some honestly believe that our constitution applies outside the borders and it does not. No, I'm not a scholar, but would a Frenchman expect that (except Louisana) he should be treated according to Napoleonic code while in the USA? France's constitution applies in France, as ours does within our borders.

As far as the neocons, I agree with part of their philosophy (states who support terror are rogue states and let's put them out of business), but not the application as it currently stands (dog bites and beating about the head). I would bend over backwards and stay on the right side of the law, treaties, customs, you name it. This whole Gitmo thing is weird for me, but the handful or so prisoners freed from there who have been implicated in more terrorism leads me to believe that we may be more right than I know.

Reading my thoughts on neocons, I'm reminded of what is sometimes said about socialism - "nice philosophy on paper, but..."

Correct Carlito, but that is why we have international law. According to our constitution international law is just as valid and recognized as anything written in the Constitution, any exective order or any federal or state law.

Article VI - Clause 2


For the purposes of this discussion that includes unfortunate and inconvenient things like the Geneva Conventions. There is an element of our population (and some in this thread) that wish the law stated otherwise but that is the law and that is the Constitution.

Ackk.. But, that wasn't my point. My question was: what happens to non-US citizens on US property outside of the US (such as US military base or some other government facility)? How do US laws apply? How does the Constitution apply? Of course, you can't apply the US Constitution to any nation except the US. Still, I appreciate the civics lesson, carlitoswhey .

There's something odd about this report.



The report was questioning "intelligence officers" in Iraq by the Red Cross, that was in turn "given to US officials"... who of course have access to the intelligence officers? And they wouldn't discuss the full report except to say "it's our report"?

Let's look at what the bits of information they give us.



Some of the detainees, who are in a war zone, had burns, bruises and other injuries.... their "liberties taken away" while they were in jail (duh) and when the soldiers raid houses they yell at them and "force them into a room" and break doors.



Until statistics are provided of real torture, I don't see evidence of systematic torture.



Nothing described in the article is "tantamount to torture". The only occurance witnessed was "detainees at Abu Ghraib were kept “completely naked in totally empty concrete cells and in total darkness”". Torture does happen and has, I don't see any evidence that it is systematic. The report from the red cross states some.

"sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and sensory deprivation through the use of hoods" is not torture. If strangling occurs, then that should be punished, given propure evidence not just allegations. These techniques are counter-productive if given to everyone who enter's but as the report states "high-value detainees were singled out for special mistreatment".

I dont think we can come to an absolute conclusion unless given access to documents that outline the imprisonment and interrogation procedure. It seem's the ones being given "sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and sensory deprivation through the use of hoods" are "high-value" targets.

First off, just a quick question: when was the last time you went without sleep for a week or so? We're not talking about staying up for 24 hrs or anything even close to that, sleep deprivation torture is being forced to be awake for long periods of time, like a week (168 hrs).

Surely we wouldn't want to compare ourselves to the KGB right? Or Japanese PoW camps either? But low and behold, they used sleep deprivation as well.



Leder, you seem to be under the assumption that torture must be physical to be considered torture. This is not true. Although I don't know if psychological torture is more or less effective than physical, it is a type of torture.



You guys are right, tampering with a persons sanity really isn't torture. Making them hallucinate really isn't any big thing.

We can't use the argument "it's fair because they do it too", or "all's fair in love and war" (because we're not in a real war, heh). These arguments hold no sway, and stooping to the level of the terrorists is no real feat either. If we're going to be America, and bring freedom and liberty to those that are oppressed, then we ought to do it the right way, which I'll admit, I'm not sure how to do. But as others have said, just because there isn't a clear action to take besides torture does not mean that torture is acceptable.

Maybe the new motto for the US should be "Do as I say, not as I do."

BBC Article

I think this definition of torture is a bit off the mark. Certainly snarling dogs and the like are "mental" torture.



www.apt.ch/un/Torture%20Definition.doc

Well my neighbor torture's me everday then.

That definition is very broad. For instance asking them tough questions would cause them "suffering" so is that torture as well? I wouldn't classify that as torture IMO. Using barking dog's can cause mental anguish I suppose but hardly what I would classify as "torture".

Vampiel, you have some pretty sick and twisted neighbors if they intentionally inflict severe pain or suffering on you for such purposes as obtaining information, or a confession. I advocate a relocation across the globe, and soon.

Seriously here, the definition is broad, but something tells me it's specific enough to determine what is and what isn't torture. I don't think asking a "tough question" would be considered inflicting severe pain.

edited for clarity

Oh I am, they are sick and twisted, they voted for [edited by poster himself for inflammatory comment] (j/k).

Asking tough questions can inflict sever mental pain. It can make someone reproduce actions in their head. For instance if a cop were asking someone that went through rape about their experiences would that not cause severe mental pain? So would that be considered torture?

Just out of curiosity Vampiel, where do you draw the line between mental anguish and mental torture?



This is a rather poor analogy, since the police are asking “tough questions” to HELP the rape victim.

Aren't American GIs asking tough questions to PROTECT Americans?

I don't think any of us have a problem with tough questioning. The issue was intimidating people with snarling dogs, etc. and where one would draw the line of demarcation between metal torture and what Vampeil has termed mental anguish.

BTW: Leder, soldiers question a prisoner and police questioning a rape victim have absolutely nothing in common.