US admits extreme 'interrogation' methods

[Malchik]

The people are being interrogated for a reason - these aren't innocent bystanders who got called in and are being pumped for information they don't have - these are terrorists who may know information about the next 9/11 attack - I'd rather torture 5 terrorists and save 5,000 lives, than not torture them at all.

 

Think about it.

Some of them may be terrorists but not all are. To adopt the approach that we should kill all potential murderers to prevent murder is not sensible as we are all potential murderers. If you say, I would rather torture 1000 innocent people to find potential terrorists, than let the terrorists get away then you go back to the days of MacArthyism (?spelling) in the US.

 

You cannot brand people as 'potentially undesirable' for the self same reason, we all are 'potentially undesirable' depending on whose point of view you are looking at it from.

 

If there is solid evidence that a person is a terrorist there may be (and it is debatable) an argument that they have by virtue of their own actions placed themselves outside the law. However doing a sweep of everyone in an area makes huge suppositions that are not justified by the action taken.

 

Furthermore it is the US and the UK who were the aggressors in this conflict and therefore there is an even stronger argument, though again debatable, that they have no more rights than the terrorists.

 

The whole purpose of the Geneva convention is to protect the innocent and prevent atrocities being carried out by BOTH sides. If you go back to - if you won't behave, I won't - we are back to the policies of the school playground.

[Dark0ne]

Some of them may be terrorists but not all are.

 

I'd argue they are there due to their involvement with terrorist activities...whether directly (being caught with TNT strapped around their waste) or indirectly (being the person who was defending the door of the secret meeting. These aren't people just picked up off the street.

 

To adopt the approach that we should kill all potential murderers to prevent murder is not sensible as we are all potential murderers.

 

I do not believe that everyone is a potential terrorist, nor did I imply we ought kill all people in order to remove this threat.

 

You cannot brand people as 'potentially undesirable' for the self same reason, we all are 'potentially undesirable' depending on whose point of view you are looking at it from.

 

I doubt I'm potentially undesirable to an islamic militant on the grounds that I strap TNT to myself in order to get what I want...mainly because I don't.

 

The whole purpose of the Geneva convention is to protect the innocent and prevent atrocities being carried out by BOTH sides. If you go back to - if you won't behave, I won't - we are back to the policies of the school playground.

 

When one side doesn't acknowledge a law, why SHOULD another when it limits options? Doesn't make sense to me.

[pharzon]

That is not entirely correct, Dark0ne. Some of the inmates at Guantanamo Bay was indeed caught fighting against the americans or defending terrorists ect.. BUT as it has been proved, many of the "illegal combatants" - the US term for prisoner of war invented to enable the americans to ignore the Geneva convention - was indeed someone who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

This whole issue about torture is very difficult indeed. I understand your point about torturing one terrorist in order to save a thousand innocents. BUT when you start torturing "suspects" then you are almost no better than them. This is where a democratic country should put its foot down.

The truth is that torture is used in many cases where the victims are only suspects - which I find morally bankrupt. These actions - along with new invented terms like "preventive strikes - are going to make this world a more violent and divided place to life..

 

EDIT: and to comment on your last statement. If I kill man, does that give you the right to kill one as well? (me being provocative I know)

 

And Malchik, I believe you hit the nail on the head. I agree with you completely.

 

pharzon

[Zmid]

Some of them may be terrorists but not all are.

 

I'd argue they are there due to their involvement with terrorist activities...whether directly (being caught with TNT strapped around their waste) or indirectly (being the person who was defending the door of the secret meeting. These aren't people just picked up off the street.

No, they weren't arrested for NO reason, just extremely weak ones. For example, there have been reports of people arrested and beaten purely on the basis of one, single, unverified, anonymous tip-off that they support the resistance.

 

I doubt I'm potentially undesirable to an islamic militant on the grounds that I strap TNT to myself in order to get what I want...mainly because I don't.

 

No, you'd be an 'undesirable' because you're from the West.

 

When one side doesn't acknowledge a law, why SHOULD another when it limits options? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

Because, if they do that, it makes both sides the same, just different clothes.

[Malchik]

If a terrorist is defined as someone who attempts to overthrow or disrupt a state illegally by violent means (and lets debate the definition by all means) it puts the UK/US approach to Iraq on the same level.

 

However, let us for the sake of argument say, that the invasion was justifiable on moral grounds. Saddam Hussein was head of state of an independent country. Within that state he faced those who wished to overthrow his government by force (in other words, terrorists from his viewpoint). He reacted by imprisoning thousands, torturing and murdering them.

 

This was our so-called justification for overthrowing his regime.

 

So what happens, we imprison thousands, torture and murder them - isn't there a credibility gap somewhere?

 

I was against the invasion but had it been UN sanctioned I would have accepted the humanitarian grounds for it. How do you expect acceptance and respect from a country you have freed from oppression if you then become the oppressor? How can you claim to hold (pardon the cliche) the 'higher moral ground'?

 

And it would be wrong to try to argue around it by saying that SH's regime was not democratically elected. Most regimes in the world are not democracies; arguably Bush's election was rigged (it's certainly questionable); and SH became leader only because he had US support in the first place.

 

I am not a died-in-the wool peacenik but I am angry at being lied to, and treated as an idiot, by those in power.

[Shakkara]

More news, this time it appears Saddam Hussein himself is being tortured by US forces (again ragtag translation from here http://frontpage.fok.nl/nieuws/42662):

 

====Newsflash=========================

 

According to a Jordanian lawyer who claims to represent Saddam Hussein, Hussein is being abused by his American interrogators. The lawyer, Mohammed Rashdan, founds his claims on a report from the Red Cross dating from 21 Januari, which contained that the Iraqi ex-leader was in good health but had some injuries. Since his capture Hussein was examined by the Red Cross twice.

 

"there is a large amount of evidence that the Iraqi president is subjected to physical and mental torture and violence," said Rashdan while showing copies of his reports to the press. The reports contain the name, birthdate and physical condition of Saddam Hussein. The Red Cross could not confirm visiting Hussein on Janurary 21st.

 

The lawyer said he was contracted by Saddam Hussein's wife. He works together with two other lawyers, he French Emmanuel Ludot and the American Curtis Doebbler. In the past Rashdan had ties with the Baath-party of Iraq, which makes it uncertain if the Americans will accept his position as lawyer. When Hussein will be tried is yet unknown.

 

===================================

 

Way to go bastards, you just lost all that was left of your moral grounds. I think we should invade the US right away for human right violations including torture, possession of WMD, having an undemocraticly elected leader, and being a threat to world peace.

 

That is not entirely correct, Dark0ne. Some of the inmates at Guantanamo Bay was indeed caught fighting against the americans or defending terrorists ect.. BUT as it has been proved, many of the "illegal combatants" - the US term for prisoner of war invented to enable the americans to ignore the Geneva convention - was indeed someone who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

The four Geneva treaties dating from 1949 are quite clear about the PoW issue:

 

"A prisioner being interrogated only has to disclose his first and last name, birthday, rank and servicenumber. This way he can be registered made known that he has been captured. It is allowed to ask other questions, but every form of torture, pressure or force intended to extract answers is strictly prohibited. Also giving cooperating prisoners a special treatment is not allowed according to the Third Treaty"

 

So the only thing the US can do is not label the prisoners as PoW. But the Geneva convention is quite clear in this aspect. When in doubt of the status of the prisoner, acticle 5 of the Third Treaty will define:

 

"An impartial and independant judge has to examine EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE and decide if the captured individual is given PoW status. As long as this is not done, the captive must be treated as PoW"

 

So they're technically still PoWs.

[pharzon]

Oh I know that, Shakkara, which was why I wrote it. I find it despicable that the US find themselves in their good right to ignore the Geneva convention claiming that the term PoW is not suitable in the case of many of their prisoners.

 

 

pharzon..

[Shakkara]

Oh I know that, Shakkara, which was why I wrote it. I find it despicable that the US find themselves in their good right to ignore the Geneva convention claiming that the term PoW is not suitable in the case of many of their prisoners.

 

 

pharzon..

Don't worry, I was just getting into detail, it was not directed against you but rather supplementing your post.

[pharzon]

Oh okay.. :)

And a good supplement by the way. When somebody sees those articles from the Geneva convention, it is very obvious what is going on in the US.

Although I still can't get into my head why almost no country is objecting to the fact that the US ignores the Geneva convention in such a blatant matter..

 

Well, concerning this - the Iraq-war on so on - I'm not too proud of my own country as well. The Danish government - yes I'm a Dane - is too busy kissing the ass of Bush to see what is really going on..

 

 

pharzon..

[Guest]

I will say this on the behalf of our Military Intelligence. They are not trained to torture prisoners. I know, I signed up to be a MI Reservist. I went through some training, but opted to back out before I got shipped off to Basic.

 

MI is trained to extrect information through the use of questions, not force. Whoever issued the order for the interrogations/torture, placed the needed information into the mids of those individuals to humiliate and abuse those prisoners. Not that thew human mind could not think of it on its own, but I do not, or at least I refuse to believe that those men and women were trained to do that.

 

Likewise, while there are benefits to torture, and dismissable excuses for its use, I cannot condone it. The United States has always been praised as the home of demeocracy and freedom. We cannot show one face to the world then hide another.

 

So fine, terrorists are torturing their prisoners, killing them on national TV, but that does not give us the right to use similar methods on our POWs. If this war is continued out in this manner, then the rumors I've heard about a draft will probably come true, simply by the virtue that the terrorists/insurgents/militants will continue to fight and kill our people, and we will be forced to expend more resources to battle against it.

 

I'm not old enough to remember, but every day the war in Iraq is beginning to feel like Vietnam.

 

On June 30th, we need to turn over control of the government to the Iraq's and pull our troops out. We have accomlished our goal, Saddam Hussien is no longer a threat to us, and there is no reason for us to stay their, other then the selfish greed of our national leaders.

 

::kicks soapbox under table::

 

Now that that rant is over, I will admit that deep down inside there is a small part of me that agrees that if torturing prisoners saves lives then I'm all for it. But if I allow that part of me to win out, then I become no better then the people the United States is supposed to be fighting against.

 

And I know that I'm better then that.