View Full Forums : Torture Bill


Panamah
10-06-2005, 11:17 AM
Good stuff

US soldiers barred from torture
Thursday Oct 6 19:15 AEST

The US Senate delivered a rare wartime rebuke to President George W Bush on Thursday by explicitly barring American soldiers from torturing or maltreating prisoners.

The changes follow the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and allegations of mistreatment at Guantanamo Bay, where Australian detainee David Hicks is soon to face a military trial.

New strict US military interrogation guidelines were passed overwhelmingly by 90 votes to nine in the Republican-controlled Senate despite White House opposition.

The senators approved an amendment that prohibits "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against anyone in US government custody, regardless of where they are held.

The proposal was sponsored by Republican Senator John McCain, who was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.

It requires all US military members to follow procedures in the Army Field Manual when they detain and interrogate terrorism suspects.

Bush administration officials say the legislation will limit the president's authority and flexibility in war.

But both Republican and Democrat lawmakers said US troops need clear standards for detaining, interrogating and prosecuting terrorism suspects.

"We demanded intelligence without ever clearly telling our troops what was permitted and what was forbidden.

"And, when things went wrong, we blamed them and we punished them," said McCain, a onetime presidential hopeful.

"Our troops are not served by ambiguity. They are crying out for clarity and Congress cannot shrink from this duty," said McCain.

The confrontation by members of the president's own party shows how reluctant some lawmakers are to give Bush unchecked wartime power as the conflict in Iraq drags on and US casualties mount.

It also comes as the president seeks to show strength after weeks in which his approval rating plummeted.

Americans are increasingly questioning the direction of the war, the sluggish federal response to Hurricane Katrina and the upsurge in gas prices.

Also pending is an amendment by Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, that would distinguish between a "lawful enemy combatant" and an "unlawful enemy combatant."

His proposal would put into law the procedures for prosecuting them at the US navy's Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a retired four-star Army general, endorsed McCain's effort.

"The world will note that America is making a clear statement with respect to the expected future behaviour of our soldiers. Such a reaction will help deal with the terrible public diplomacy crisis created by Abu Ghraib," Powell said in a letter that McCain read on the Senate floor.

Panamah
10-06-2005, 11:37 AM
I've heard there's some who think the Pres. will veto the bill with this provision.

Me... he doesn't have the 'nads.

Erianaiel
10-06-2005, 02:22 PM
I've heard there's some who think the Pres. will veto the bill with this provision.

Me... he doesn't have the 'nads.

What really scared me was that it was implied in that article that the white house feels they need to be able to torture suspects in their crusade against terrorists.
I wonder if they realise that torture is, by the Convention of Geneva to which the USA is a signatory, a war crime for which no mitigating circumstances are possible. If you do torture, order torture or knowingly condone torture you are guilty of a war crime...
Of course these are the same people who try to wiggle out of the soldier/civilian distinction in that same Convention so they can ignore every right and legal protection for an entire population both under national and international law. It does show their questionable ethics, that much is certain.


Eri

Panamah
10-06-2005, 02:47 PM
I don't think anyone would want to go down in history being know as the pro-torture president.

Aidon
10-06-2005, 04:09 PM
I can understand the President's frustration.

It seems, today, that torture includes not having salisbury steak night at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo

Further, our opponents don't mind beheading civilians, but heaven forbid the US take a few pictures or forget to give someone a Koran.

Drake09
10-06-2005, 04:43 PM
I was expecting some flash video of bill clinton where s&m gear was plastered everywhere and everytime I clicked a whip would crack out.

Even so, I'm really not that dissapointed :-p

Erianaiel
10-06-2005, 04:45 PM
I can understand the President's frustration.

It seems, today, that torture includes not having salisbury steak night at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo

Further, our opponents don't mind beheading civilians, but heaven forbid the US take a few pictures or forget to give someone a Koran.

*blinks*

I think you underestimate a bit what the prisoners at Abu Ghraib went through, or the people in Guantanamo Bay who have been held for questioning for years frequently in solitary isolation, under excessively uncomfortable circumstances (sleep deprivation, continuous loud music, heat or cold are considered means of torture for a reason). Abu Ghraib included physical abuse, death threats, humiliation and emotional degradation. All of those accusations are quite a bit more severe than 'witholding steak'

Some of the torture that has been tacitly accepted in other countries (shipping prisoners there knowing and with the intention they would be tortured, which in itself is a war crime) went way beyond that even.


Eri

Panamah
10-06-2005, 05:01 PM
Ok, this is weird. I say "Torture Bill" in the subject just now and thought it would be a great prequel to "Kill Bill".

Anka
10-06-2005, 05:19 PM
The bill looks good.

Kryttos Arcadia
10-06-2005, 08:42 PM
Torture is never an answer.... the US has to set some sorta example.. and we are failing poorly. Super Power indeed.

Aidon
10-07-2005, 04:51 PM
*blinks*

I think you underestimate a bit what the prisoners at Abu Ghraib went through, or the people in Guantanamo Bay who have been held for questioning for years frequently in solitary isolation, under excessively uncomfortable circumstances (sleep deprivation, continuous loud music, heat or cold are considered means of torture for a reason).

Guantanamo may not be pleasant...and it may be uncomfortable, but it isn't torturous by normal definitions. All of those things you listed were devised as alternatives (more effective ones, at that) to physical torture for purposes of extracting information from an unwilling participant. What would you have nations do to extract information from the opposition, ask nicely and threaten to withold ice cream on Sundays?

Abu Ghraib included physical abuse, death threats, humiliation and emotional degradation. All of those accusations are quite a bit more severe than 'witholding steak'

There was little to no evidence of physical abuse. Death threats, humiliation, emotional degradation? How do you define 'emotional degradation'? I can assure you, however you define it, Arabs will claim its happening to them. Humiliation? **** em. Honestly, I don't care. It beats the hell out of real torture with eventual beheading. Death Threats...please.

Klath
10-07-2005, 05:18 PM
What would you have nations do to extract information from the opposition, ask nicely and threaten to withold ice cream on Sundays?
Use techniques similar to what the police use to get confessions/information from suspects. They're pretty good at it.

Aidon
10-08-2005, 01:39 AM
Use techniques similar to what the police use to get confessions/information from suspects. They're pretty good at it.

Police beat people for confessions with some regularity, hold them w/o allowing food/drink/bathroom breaks. "humiliate" them.

Oh, and don't presume that our foes are as stupid as a person who confesses to a crime.

Kalest MoonGlade
10-08-2005, 03:43 AM
I can understand the President's frustration.

It seems, today, that torture includes not having salisbury steak night at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo

Further, our opponents don't mind beheading civilians, but heaven forbid the US take a few pictures or forget to give someone a Koran.

Amen!

Erianaiel
10-08-2005, 07:54 AM
Further, our opponents don't mind beheading civilians, but heaven forbid the US take a few pictures or forget to give someone a Koran.


Amen!


I wonder what the point of fighting is then, if you feel you should act just as barbaric as your opponent. I mean, does that not mean you basically agree with what they are doing?


Eri

Arienne
10-08-2005, 09:50 AM
I wonder what the point of fighting is then, if you feel you should act just as barbaric as your opponent. I mean, does that not mean you basically agree with what they are doing?I haven't seen anyone say that we should "act just as barbaric as [our] opponent". However, if you take away a means of gathering information and publicize openly that we can't even play "Tiptoe Through the Tulips" to a prisoner, that prisoner can sit there comfortably (well, relatively so... certainly "cushy" compared to his homeland prison) and confident that things will get no worse for him whether he "spills the beans" or not. You need fear of the unknown... not fear of the known, because our "known" is pretty lukewarm compared to most.

Panamah
10-08-2005, 11:02 AM
I don't know, the guy that masterminded the 9/11 bombings has been spilling his guts to us. Perhaps there are better ways to get things out of prisoners than beating the crap out of them. Like tricking them, like using our intelligence services, etc.

Anka
10-08-2005, 11:25 AM
Information gained through torture is unreliable, inadmissable in a court, and prone to the gravest miscarraiges of justice. It is the worst quality of evidence that can be gained. There are no great advantages in getting intelligence through torture other than it being available, comparitively easy to do, and personally satisfying to sadists.

Klath
10-08-2005, 11:53 AM
Police beat people for confessions with some regularity, hold them w/o allowing food/drink/bathroom breaks. "humiliate" them.
If "some regularity" means you hear about it in the news periodically then I agree. Still, it is against the law for the police to beat confessions out of people and any confession gained that way can be discarded.

Oh, and don't presume that our foes are as stupid as a person who confesses to a crime.
Why would you presume they were smarter? In any case, I don't think being smart will protect you from a skillful interrogator. At best it might make things take longer. Interrogation is an art and involves a lot of manipulation and psychology. It also requires the ability to discern when the information you're being given is bogus. If you look at the people who were involved in the prisoner abuse scandals, most of them were relatively new and none of them look to be all that bright. I bet that most of the info they tortured out of the prisoners was crap.

Aidon
10-08-2005, 02:29 PM
I wonder what the point of fighting is then, if you feel you should act just as barbaric as your opponent. I mean, does that not mean you basically agree with what they are doing?


Eri

Who said anything about beheading our opponents? Or even physically torturing them? I just refuse to fall in with the notion that what the US has done is torture. Its only torture when the US is doing it. The world gets up in arms because the US takes a few humiliating pictures and yet remains silent over the brutalities of tyrranical regimes in the same region.

Where are the protestations of hose Syria treats its political prisoners? Where are the aghast faces at prison life in Saudi Arabia?

When the world wants to accuse America of torture for letting scantily clad women interrogate men it simply loses credibility.

Aidon
10-08-2005, 02:32 PM
Why would you presume they were smarter?

Because you have to be an absolute idiot to confess to a crime to the police other than on advise from your attorney.

In any case, I don't think being smart will protect you from a skillful interrogator.

If you have the intelligence required to just STFU, you can protect yourself from skillful interrogation...unless they start in using what everyone is now calling 'torture'.

Klath
10-08-2005, 02:58 PM
Because you have to be an absolute idiot to confess to a crime to the police other than on advise from your attorney.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest the possibility that some of the folks in Gitmo/Abu Ghraib didn't have their attorneys on speed dial.

If you have the intelligence required to just STFU, you can protect yourself from skillful interrogation
In a 19 hour interrogation, that's harder to do than you make it out to be but I suspect you already know that. In any case, if you have the intelligence required to make up a story you can get out of physical torture. Why is it any better?

Anka
10-08-2005, 04:30 PM
Where are the protestations of hose Syria treats its political prisoners? Where are the aghast faces at prison life in Saudi Arabia?


Britain does not deport or extradite prisoners to Syria and a number of other countries on the grounds that they may be tortured. We do extradite criminals to the US as common practice and obviously want to continue to do so. We do not accept in court any evidence gained under undue duress, and this may have prevented prosecution of British citizens released from Guantanamo Bay. Forget the media hype, this is how we are actually working our criminal justice system.

Aidon
10-08-2005, 05:37 PM
Do not confuse the criminal justice system with national security detainment of foreign hostiles and intelligence gathering.

Erianaiel
10-08-2005, 05:43 PM
Who said anything about beheading our opponents? Or even physically torturing them? I just refuse to fall in with the notion that what the US has done is torture. Its only torture when the US is doing it. The world gets up in arms because the US takes a few humiliating pictures and yet remains silent over the brutalities of tyrranical regimes in the same region.

The USA promised it would not do things like that.
What others do should not make any difference to your own morals.
"But mommy, the other kids do it too" is not accepted as an excuse by children either, why should it for countries?
American law says that criminals have certain rights when it come to how they are detained and how they are treated. It also says that evidence, or a confession, that is obtained by excessive pressure being applied to the subject is not admissible. Too often it was found out that somebody admitted to a crime they did not commit because they could no longer withstand that pressure.
To me, it seems that rights you grant to your own criminals should also be granted to foreign criminals. And it is not just me who is feeling that way. Convention of Geneva says the same and lays down specific rules for how prisoners of war should be treated, and what is not acceptable.

Where are the protestations of hose Syria treats its political prisoners? Where are the aghast faces at prison life in Saudi Arabia?


Ask Amnesty International. They are protesting every day of the year.
In the case of Guantanamo Bay and especially Abu Ghraib the backlash was more severe because the USA claimed to have invaded Iraq to liberate its people from a tyrannical rule. If it is subsequently found to apply the same methods the despot used they just dethroned then that smacks of hypocrisy.


When the world wants to accuse America of torture for letting scantily clad women interrogate men it simply loses credibility.

Piling up prisoners naked, treating them like animals, threatening them with guard dogs and breaking bones are all a bit more serious than letting 'a scantily clad woman interrogate them'


Eri

Aidon
10-08-2005, 06:13 PM
The USA promised it would not do things like that.
What others do should not make any difference to your own morals.
"But mommy, the other kids do it too" is not accepted as an excuse by children either, why should it for countries?
American law says that criminals have certain rights when it come to how they are detained and how they are treated. It also says that evidence, or a confession, that is obtained by excessive pressure being applied to the subject is not admissible. Too often it was found out that somebody admitted to a crime they did not commit because they could no longer withstand that pressure.
To me, it seems that rights you grant to your own criminals should also be granted to foreign criminals. And it is not just me who is feeling that way. Convention of Geneva says the same and lays down specific rules for how prisoners of war should be treated, and what is not acceptable.

I do not hold that foreigners engaging in hostile activities against the US and its civilian population deserve the same treatment as our domestic criminals.



Ask Amnesty International. They are protesting every day of the year.
In the case of Guantanamo Bay and especially Abu Ghraib the backlash was more severe because the USA claimed to have invaded Iraq to liberate its people from a tyrannical rule. If it is subsequently found to apply the same methods the despot used they just dethroned then that smacks of hypocrisy.

I think Amnesty International is the biggest bunch of hypcritical pieces of **** to walk the earth, to be blunt.

They spend their time protesting against the US and Israel...and are amazingly silent about places where people are literally and actually tortured. Not this 'They made me take dirty pictures' quasi-torture.



Piling up prisoners naked, treating them like animals, threatening them with guard dogs

Still beats the hell out of having fingernails pulled out, being beaten severely, anally raped, and eventually beheaded.

and breaking bones

I've yet to see credible evidence of this.

Panamah
10-08-2005, 07:40 PM
WI just refuse to fall in with the notion that what the US has done is torture. Its only torture when the US is doing it. The world gets up in arms because the US takes a few humiliating pictures and yet remains silent over the brutalities of tyrranical regimes in the same region.
This is nonsense. The world knows, and its been all over the press for the last several years, that we're doing a lot more than taking humiliating pictures of prisoners in homo-erotic scenes. We're not talking about mere humiliation.

The US is constantly picking over China and other countries about human right's abuses, there are organizations all over the world that shed light on torture. It isn't just the US. However, I think it really sets everyone back on their heels to see it the US doing it since we've been so righteous about putting pressure on other countries about not torturing people.

Anka
10-08-2005, 09:32 PM
Do not confuse the criminal justice system with national security detainment of foreign hostiles and intelligence gathering.

I'm not. The UK had a dozen terrorist suspects that it wanted to prosecute but hadn't evidence and couldn't deport because the home countries might use torture. This is nothing new as the UK has for many years had troublemakers of many types that we will never deport into the hands of torturers. Whether you are talking about rebels, anarchists, political leaders, accused terrorists, or a variety of undesirables, that is the standard we set on torture.

Does the US use the same standards?

Cantatus
10-09-2005, 06:17 AM
*scratches head* Why do we have two posts on this?

Who said anything about beheading our opponents? Or even physically torturing them? I just refuse to fall in with the notion that what the US has done is torture. Its only torture when the US is doing it. The world gets up in arms because the US takes a few humiliating pictures and yet remains silent over the brutalities of tyrranical regimes in the same region.

See my post here. (http://eq.forums.thedruidsgrove.org/showpost.php?p=177418&postcount=14)

From what I understand, this torture bill doesn't enforce anything new, just the stuff that the army is already supposed to be abiding by which is covered in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation. (See (a) (http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_10_02_dish_archive.html#112852466667513235))

Where are the protestations of hose Syria treats its political prisoners? Where are the aghast faces at prison life in Saudi Arabia?

Yeah, the stuff that's happening isn't as bad as the beheadings and such that are going around in other countries, but that doesn't really make what we are doing excusable. We're supposed to be the good guys here. We shouldn't be pointing fingers and saying, "Well, they're worse!"

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-09-2005, 07:18 PM
We're supposed to be the good guys here.

Who said that?

That is an sophmore notion.

Klath
10-09-2005, 07:39 PM
Who said that?

That is an sophmore notion.
And we live in a freshman world.

Cantatus
10-09-2005, 11:16 PM
Who said that?

That is an sophmore notion.

You mean Bush hasn't been trying to present our country as the holy freedom fighters trying to rid the world of the evil terrorists that aim to destroy our "way of life?"

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-09-2005, 11:29 PM
You mean Bush hasn't been trying to present our country as the holy freedom fighters trying to rid the world of the evil terrorists that aim to destroy our "way of life?"

Does that kind of marketing really work for/on you?


Do you, Just Do It?

Is Coke really it?

Are you really Eatin' Good in the Neighborhood?

Cantatus
10-09-2005, 11:31 PM
I never said it was. Note the "supposed to be."

Gus Fifo
10-12-2005, 10:10 AM
If we were as barbaric as our opponent there wouldn't be any opponents. If we used every means at our disposal like they are, the war would be over. Yes, there would be a ton of casualties but it would be a decisive outcome. War loses its capabilities when its hands are tied by politicians and lawyers. Ironically it is usually a political figure who starts it. Diplomacy can not solve every issue that comes up. Sometimes a bit of necessary violence is needed. 6+ billion people and counting. That's too much diplomacy for anyone to handle.


"War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force." <--- Name the movie.

Panamah
10-12-2005, 10:32 AM
You seem to forget all the innocent people who are affected by war. How many 100,000's of thousands of innocent people died because we were looking for WMD's that didn't exist?

And lets imagine that the image of that doesn't deter us, because obviously it doesn't, how do countries we have an uneasy peace with view a country that has no moral qualms about squishing civilizations respond? They'd get nervous, they would probably over-respond to any perceived threat.

You can bet if we acted like you propose, Gus, we'd probably be sanctioned by every other country in the world at the very least.

Stormhaven
10-12-2005, 10:40 AM
The bill should be vetoed because riders are a retarded method of trying to get legislation passed. By attaching the "no torture" rider to the military funding bill, you aren't sending a strong message that you're "anti-torture," you're sending the message that you're "anti-torture because we need the money." If the Senate is so gung-ho and sure that a "no torture" bill can pass on it's own merits, then they should draft a proposal to that end and send it through that way.

But the thing is, they're not sure. While the bill looks bad for Bush because it passed through the Senate, by no means does it guarantee that should a "No torture" bill be drafted solo, that it would make it out of Congress. It's a feeble attempt at a strong message and nothing more than more political maneuvering by the members of Senate to make themselves look good.

Erianaiel
10-12-2005, 01:58 PM
The bill should be vetoed because riders are a retarded method of trying to get legislation passed. By attaching the "no torture" rider to the military funding bill, you aren't sending a strong message that you're "anti-torture," you're sending the message that you're "anti-torture because we need the money." If the Senate is so gung-ho and sure that a "no torture" bill can pass on it's own merits, then they should draft a proposal to that end and send it through that way.

But the thing is, they're not sure. While the bill looks bad for Bush because it passed through the Senate, by no means does it guarantee that should a "No torture" bill be drafted solo, that it would make it out of Congress. It's a feeble attempt at a strong message and nothing more than more political maneuvering by the members of Senate to make themselves look good.

I probably do not exactly understand what is going on, but I thought the "no torture" part of the bill was attached to the military spending bill so that to get one (the increased spending) Bush would have to accept the other (the no torture clause).

Personally I think it is a weird way of dealing with budgets and legislation, but I figure it comes from having a constitution that does leave some grey areas when it comes to separating legislative, executive and controlling tasks of the various branches of government.

Of course this likely illustrates my profound lack of understanding of the American constitution, but I have seen reports that Bush officially can not introduce a bill for discussion by congress, but can easily get somebody else to do it; that he can only veto things, except when he can not (or something). Like I said, it seems all rather muddled to me.

What I do know that if the government of my country would so blatantly ignore something desired by the majority of parliament, they would more likely than not face a vote of "no confidence" and be out of office within a day. I would expect congress to have a similar power to kick out a president that exhibits even a slight tendency to behave like an absolutist monarch, but perhaps they do not? Or are they so powerhungry that they rather let the president get away with things than risk early elections?


Eri
(note this is not an attack on the USA, just earnest curiousity because I truly am confused by contradicting reports about the why and what of the powers within the various branches of the USA government)

Cantatus
10-12-2005, 02:05 PM
By attaching the "no torture" rider to the military funding bill, you aren't sending a strong message that you're "anti-torture," you're sending the message that you're "anti-torture because we need the money." If the Senate is so gung-ho and sure that a "no torture" bill can pass on it's own merits, then they should draft a proposal to that end and send it through that way.

I absolutely agree with that. Riders on bills always have struck me as being a very slimy way of doing things. Bills should pass on their own merits, not because it'll make someone look bad if they don't agree with half the bill and people automatically assume they're against the other half.

Of course, I will find a little irony in Bush looking bad for vetoing it when one of the things that really hurt Kerry was because of a rider. That whole, "I voted for the war before I voted against it" thing was because the second time, there were riders attached he didn't agree with.

Regardless, I think the anti-torture bill should be passed. Quite honestly, I don't think it should have to be passed since the rules are already outlined and people are ignoring them, but if it's the only way to get them to abide by it, then so be it.

Stormhaven
10-12-2005, 02:13 PM
Eri, that's correct - during a bill's "ride" through the Congressional proceedings, a member of Congress can request that a "rider" be attached to an existing bill. While the various parts of Congress can debate the merits of allowing the rider, the President cannot veto a part of a bill, he must accept it as a whole or nothing (you'll hear this referred to as a Line-Item Veto - something Presidents want, but usually don't get, because Congress is afraid that would give the President too much power, which it probably would).

Congress introduces legislation in ways like this in order to get support for bills that would otherwise have no chance in hell of making it through on their own merits. That's how you get weird bills that go cross-subject like a combination of farming subsidization and three-point seatbelt harnesses for children. Or it's also used in "give-and-take" scenarios where you get looser environmental restrictions on exporting goods and wildlife sanctuaries in Alaska. (Both are extreme examples, but you get the idea).

And the problem with assuming that everyone wants this bill to pass because of the no torture clause is the fact that you can't be sure unless the torture bill stands on it's own. Right now, it's riding on the coattails of a needed bill - military spending for Iraq. Also, the bill has only passed in the Senate, but is expected to fail in the House of Representatives (two halves of a whole), so it may not even get to the President.

Panamah
10-12-2005, 02:19 PM
Well, in our country it is entirely possible to have a president who is of the opposite party of the legislative houses. In yours, that isn't possible right? In our country you can only throw them out for "high crimes and misdemenors" whatever that means. Unfortunately being incompetent and wrong about pretty much everything isn't a crime.

Where do you live, Eri?

Thicket Tundrabog
10-12-2005, 03:13 PM
The Canadian parliamentary system has provisions for 'non confidence' vote and it can force an election. This has happened... I think the last time was in 1978. The ruling party lost the subsequent election. It almost happened a few months ago, but a last-minute party defection saved the government.

You can't really apply 'non-confidence' to the U.S. form of government. The U.S. has a two-party system and the party with the most seats isn't necessarily the same party as the President.

A non-confidence motion in Canada won't succeed if the governing party has a majority of seats in the House of Commons (kinda like the House of Representatives). With a two-party system, one party will automatically have at least half the seats.

Blah... argument gets a bit convoluted. Let's just say that 'non-confidence' won't work in the U.S. because the system is different and leave it at that :).

The ability to kick out an incompetent government has its advantages, but also has pitfalls.

palamin
10-12-2005, 03:26 PM
They were talking about this on Bill Maher's show. Some of the points they addressed was the white house memos allowing such acts to take place. Now, the Us did sign their names to the Geneva Convention way back in the day, which clearly outlines the procedures to be used for P.O.W.'s but not spies and terrorists, and suspected of commiting those acts. They should be allowed to detain until trial, interogate using non violent techniques, or other acts of torture. Except for spies that are well pretty much on their own if caught.

More of what they talked about was about the command structure of the Officers and enlisted service members, and how the officers should be there to keep the soldiers in line and recognize that some of these memos are actually contradict morals and ethics and therefore should be one of the orders that is unlawful for the soldiers and officers to follow. Another thing they were talking about was accountability and how the soldiers are just doing what they are told, and then are being held accountable for their actions, when those higher up in the command structure are not being held accountable for these actions when they are the ones allowing this to go on, if not advocating these measures.

More of which they talked about was morals and ethics, treating terrorists in custody poorly, just fuels their fire and gives them reason to hate us, afterall we are using the same methods as them, if not worse. So it gets blurry there. And suspected terrorists that are tortured, and were released and now, have justification to be a terrorist, all in all a good show, It brings up many topics for debate.

Panamah
10-12-2005, 03:29 PM
Frankly, right now the parlimentary system looks REAL appealing to me. :D

Stormhaven
10-12-2005, 03:32 PM
Much like all the Hollywood stars who swore they would move to Canada if Bush won office again, it's all talk and no substance (and funny to note that immigration from the US to Canada was down after Bush took office).

Panamah
10-12-2005, 04:20 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of adopting it here. :p Especially if they wear those funny wigs still.

Erianaiel
10-12-2005, 05:50 PM
Well, in our country it is entirely possible to have a president who is of the opposite party of the legislative houses. In yours, that isn't possible right? In our country you can only throw them out for "high crimes and misdemenors" whatever that means. Unfortunately being incompetent and wrong about pretty much everything isn't a crime.

Where do you live, Eri?

Dutch parliamentary system is very similar to that of e.g. Germany or various scandinavian countries.

We are a monarchy, meaning that the head of state is heridatary instead of elected, but the function is largely ceremonial (though not completely)

Elections are for parliament, which consists of two houses. The lower house has direct elections (meaning that votes are tallied at a national level and distrubuted to parties according to the number of votes received).
Leader of the majority (or typically the largest) party forms a government. This is where the queen theoretically has some political influence as she appoints the person who negotiates with the various parties about the coalition and the exact constitution of the government (though she will traditionally appoint the person suggested by the majority party. If that fails she normally will consult all party leaders before suggesting another negotiator). Once negotiations are completed the new government is suggested to the queen, which she gracefully accepts. Technically they will rule in her name though in practice she has no real ability in influencing them.

Government decides on spending and introduces new laws as necessary though the members of the lower house can also introduce their own bills. The primary role of parliament is to control the government. They have the right to vote down laws introduced by the government and to demand members of the government to appear before them to defend policy they signed for. Finally they have the power to vote down the government entirely, forcing new elections (However more commonly this is done when a party ceases to support the coalition which then loses the majority vote needed to get laws and policy through parliament. If the quarrel is with a specific minister this can be resolved by that person resigning and being replaced instead of forcing reelections).

Upper house of parliament started out as a safety measure by the monarch (who appointed its members) so he could block any legislation he wanted, but this has evolved into a more general safety mechanism. It is elected indirectly (through the various provinces) and can not introduce laws, or discuss policy of spending. However, their task is to look at every law accepted by the lower house to determine if it is fair, appropriate, practical and most importantly within the letter and spirit of the constitution. Unless a majority of the upper houses accepts it a law does not go into effect. While some argue that the upper house no longer serves a function, it has in recent times blocked a number of ill-conceived laws that were accepted by the lower house for political reasons only.

Quite a different system from what I understand the USA uses.


Eri

Panamah
10-13-2005, 12:59 PM
Eri, just curious about your heriditary monarchy. Does that pass to the eldest child or the eldest male child? Or how does that work?

I have always thought the Dutch were one of the most progressive societies even going back 100's of years they were always substantially more socially progressive than any other society around.

Erianaiel
10-13-2005, 01:49 PM
Eri, just curious about your heriditary monarchy. Does that pass to the eldest child or the eldest male child? Or how does that work?

In the Netherlands, and in most other European monarchies it is eldest child. The eldest male child ceased to be of importance when monarchs no longer were expected to personally lead their armies in battle. Typically though the rule was only changed when there was no male child


I have always thought the Dutch were one of the most progressive societies even going back 100's of years they were always substantially more socially progressive than any other society around.

I am not sure, or rather I am quite sure, that the one does not exclude the other. After all, some presidents in the world have absolute power, despite being 'elected' every few years while others are almost politically powerless. I believe that elections do not make a democracy; it goes deeper than that.

Regarding the progressive nature of the Dutch though, that was part born out of necessity (a small country surrounded by much larger nations so it could not afford internal division) and in part caused by the fact that the Netherlands for a very long time was a true democracy before it even was invented. Not because there were elections in the 1700s, but because there was no centralised power. It meant that nobody could truly command others and all power was derived from consensus. I.e. to lead one had to convince others to follow. It gave even the poor some (very) small degree of influence and created a society where the norm was to cooperate and accept differences (as long as you did not flaunt them too openly), instead of enforcing unity. Evolving from there into a socially progressive society was natural I suppose :)


Eri

Thicket Tundrabog
10-13-2005, 03:02 PM
I echo Eri's comments about consensus being a norm in Dutch society. I had numerous eye-opening examples when I worked in the Netherlands. One particular incident sticks out in my mind. It underlines the differerence between Dutch and American culture.

I worked for Royal Dutch Shell in coal gasification. There was a large demonstration plant at the Shell Deer Park Refinery, near Houston. I was the main liaison between the Dutch and the Americans. The Dutch considered me German, while the Americans considered me Canadian (i.e. I was neutral, but still an insider for both groups.)

I recall one meeting at Westhollow Research Centre near Houston. There were about 8 Dutch technical specialists, and a similar number of American experts. The Dutch were used to management by consensus, the Americans looked to authority to make decisions.

The American head of the Research Centre sat in the meeting all day. He asked a few polite questions, was attentive, but let things run their course. There were lots of heated technical discussions. Some things were decided, but most issues were still under discussion.

At 4:20 P.M. the American boss stood up, thanked everyone for coming, acknowledged everyone's input, and told everyone what he had decided would now happen. The American experts nodded, packed up their stuff and left, perfectly happy with the outcome and process. The Dutch were thunderstruck and dumbfounded. They had great difficulty accepting an autocratic decision while issues were still being constructively discussed. I still remember the shocked looks on their faces.

Understanding both cultures, I still grin when I remember this incident.

Panamah
10-13-2005, 03:22 PM
LOL! Yes, that would be quite a culture shock. :D

spanky_p
10-13-2005, 03:31 PM
Well, I am in the military and I don't like this bill at all. Nor do I agree totally with the Geneva Convention. Yeah we may need to set some sort of example as to our prisoner treatment. If we are going to be treating prisoners one way, then they should be subjected to the same rules we are.

If they can hurt, mangle, torture, and chop of body parts why can't we submit them to the same treatment. I am a compationate man and follow the golden rule. Treat others how you want to be treated.

I tell you one thing soldiers may be looking for guidance cause they think what they do is OK since the enemy is doing the same and worst. But they get court martialed so they are scare and if you keep taking away their options. I tell you whats going to happen. Peeople will start asking the question "Where are the prisoners" cause there will be none. Why take someone prisoner if they going to be treated better than you are when you don't want to be here in the first place or why take an enemy prisoner if he drops his weapon and raises his hands. He probably ran out of ammo in the first place and is cornered. What good are they as a prisoner is their not going to be scared into giving up information.

Ask yourselves this if you are in a war zone. You firing on your enemy and run out of ammo. You think they can't shoot me if I am not holding a weapon and I raise my hands. If they take me I'll be OK cause they will just lock me up and ask me questions that I can not answer and they can do nothing to me to make me give them any information. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

I would throw down my weapon in a min. to stay alive at least a little longer until maybe someone can give me out. But if I know I may have my be shot, stabbed, or my head get cut off. Hell i will have to start throwing rocks or something and running like hell.

Panamah
10-13-2005, 03:43 PM
We don't live in a world where everyone always agrees to play by the same rules. Does that mean that we should live by the rules of the most brutish bastards?

There are consequences to the enemy not playing by the rules. They aren't going to be an object of sympathy to other Muslims if they blow up Mosques, graphically behead people and murder other Muslims. Not to mention being hunted down and captured or killed.

What good are they as a prisoner is their not going to be scared into giving up information.

They're not shooting at you is a pretty good thing.

Yrys
10-13-2005, 03:54 PM
If they can hurt, mangle, torture, and chop of body parts why can't we submit them to the same treatment. I am a compationate man and follow the golden rule. Treat others how you want to be treated.
I'm not even a religious person, but... the golden rule is to treat others as you'd wish to be treated, not to treat them as they've treated you. That's eye for an eye, which if I remember, goes against the precepts of the Christian religion. :P

Cantatus
10-13-2005, 04:13 PM
I would throw down my weapon in a min. to stay alive at least a little longer until maybe someone can give me out. But if I know I may have my be shot, stabbed, or my head get cut off. Hell i will have to start throwing rocks or something and running like hell.

So you're essentially saying you'd much rather the terrorists and Iraqis continue to look for ways to fight us so they don't end up in a prison where they can be tortured rather than having them surrender and quite possibly save some of our own men?

If they can hurt, mangle, torture, and chop of body parts why can't we submit them to the same treatment. I am a compationate man and follow the golden rule. Treat others how you want to be treated.

Err... so you want to be hurt, mangled, tortured, and maimed?

It's quite hypocritical for us to point at Saddam's regime and the horrible things he did to people he imprisoned, but to turn right around and do it to ours. If we act like the enemy, how are we better than them?

Kayla Williams, a former US Army soldier who wrote 'Love My Rifle More Than You," had a great quote regarding this:
"You know, when I saw the incident that I saw, after it was over, I approached the non-commissioned officer in charge, and I said, 'You know, anyone that you have in there that is innocent is a terrorist by the time they walk out.' And he said he knew."

We shouldn't be giving the enemy additional reasons to be against us. That only increases the amount of people in organizations like Al Qaeda and the insurgancies. You torture an innocent man, and you can sure as hell bet he's going to become your enemy.

Erianaiel
10-13-2005, 05:08 PM
Ask yourselves this if you are in a war zone. You firing on your enemy and run out of ammo. You think they can't shoot me if I am not holding a weapon and I raise my hands. If they take me I'll be OK cause they will just lock me up and ask me questions that I can not answer and they can do nothing to me to make me give them any information. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

I would throw down my weapon in a min. to stay alive at least a little longer until maybe someone can give me out. But if I know I may have my be shot, stabbed, or my head get cut off. Hell i will have to start throwing rocks or something and running like hell.

The Convention of Geneva says that enemy soldiers who surrender should indeed be treated much like that. They must be disarmed, and moved to a place where they can be held in reasonable shelter and safety as soon as reasonably possible. It also says that prisoners of war should not be subject to unduly harsh conditions and are not required to anything beyond their name, rank and resistration number. Force may be applied to prisoners only as needed to keep them secured. A certain limited access to prisoners of war by neutral third parties (traditionally the Red Cross) is a right as well as notification of the enemy who has been taken prisoner. Exchange of prisoners during the war is not required but after the hostilities end it is mandatory. Finally the by taking prisoners you become responsible for their safety as you would for any civilian.
Soldiers who continue fighting after apparently surrendering are guilty of a war crime and can be tried for that immediately. Even in the field.

As for surrendering without due reason. That is a violation of military law and can, and generally will, be punished after you are set free, either with serious jail time but many countries have a death penalty for that in their military law still.

The Convention of Geneva only recognises that if you are in a war zone you are either a soldier or a civilian. Soldiers should do their best to avoid harming civilians, though it accepts that accidents happen. A soldier pretending to be a civilian is considered to be a spy, and foregoes all normal protections that soldiers have. I.e. they are considered criminals and can be treated as such.
Soldiers taking shelter with or behind civilians are guilty of a war crime and can be tried for that.

Signatories to the Convention or Geneva are required to abide by it, and even if their enemy does not that does not give them the right to ignore the treaty also. In fact, the UN tends so hold even countries that are not signatories to it to be bound by the Convention of Geneva (hence the Rwanda Tribunal, and to a certain extent, the Yugoslavia War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague)

Only the fact that the US army is indeed prosecuting its soldiers found guilty of war crimes and the fact that nobody has figured out how to prosecute the US has in fact saved it from preliminary investigation by the International War Crimes Tribunal. By effectively condoning torture Bush does in fact open up himself to prosecution at a later date. Accepting the rider would have been a strong argument against it. It also would have been a good PR move.


Eri

Anka
10-13-2005, 05:38 PM
Something the military personnel might like to remember is the capture of Argentine troops in the Falklands. About 150 British troops made a reconnaisance of Port Stanley and found the Argentine troops immediately surrendering. They then had the difficulty of holding thousands of Argentine troops with that 150 men.

Two points here ... Firstly, it's unlikely that thousands of soldiers would surrender at all if they expected maltreatment and brutality. If you gain the respect of the enemy it will pay off in the long run. Secondly, Britain and Argentina now have reasonable relations, probably not great but reasonable. We wouldn't have any decent relations if the Argentine troops had been tortured and abused. You not only need to win the war but win the peace afterwards.

As an extra point, I don't even think that any British troops taken prisoner would have been badly treated by the Argentines. The military junta in Argentina wasn't a pleasant regime, but even they had some standards.

Thicket Tundrabog
10-14-2005, 07:53 AM
During/after World War II prisoners of war in Europe were treated differently.

Germans treated American POWs the best, followed closely by the British. The French were treated noticeably worse. Russians were treated poorly. Not surprisingly, the treatment of German POWs followed the exact same pattern. I don't think either side took leadership in establishing this pattern. I believe that historical relationships determined how POWs were treated.

Post-war relations reflected the same patterns as POW treatment.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-15-2005, 02:47 AM
The military junta in Argentina wasn't a pleasant regime, but even they had some standards.

And I don't suppose that Argentinians routinely strap explosives to their bodies to blow up other people, either.

Your point that culture plays a good deal in how prisoners are treated is a valid one(but probably headed in a direction you did not want). If you are dealing with an enemy which tortures, maims, and beheads their prisoners, and that that is accepted culturally; cultural relativism says that it would be morally ok to return those favors.

I have not seen a valid argument yet to say that an enemy which does dispicable things should not have it returned back to them; other than some Saturday morning serial notion that we are SUPPOSED to wear white hats.

Yrys
10-15-2005, 03:39 AM
But there have been valid arguments made. Notably, favorable impressions from other countries, and even from our citizens. If we employ terrorist tactics, and use torture, it makes us look bad. Enough bad impressions from other countries, and some of them might decide to do something about it (economic or military or whatever), and that would be ugly. Enough bad impressions from our own citizens, and morale and trust in the government goes down.

Also ethics, though I guess the argument could be made that it's relative and based on upbringing.

Trying to think of more here, but too tired to sort it out right now.

Aidon
10-15-2005, 03:49 AM
I'm not even a religious person, but... the golden rule is to treat others as you'd wish to be treated, not to treat them as they've treated you. That's eye for an eye, which if I remember, goes against the precepts of the Christian religion. :P

I'm not Christian.

Anka
10-15-2005, 07:35 AM
I have not seen a valid argument yet to say that an enemy which does dispicable things should not have it returned back to them; other than some Saturday morning serial notion that we are SUPPOSED to wear white hats.

Setting the standards by the worst people in either side in warfare is an obvious mistake. It is always the worst behavior that is notorious. It is always the worst behavior that shouldn't be copied. Abu Ghraib should never set a standards for holding prisoners anywhere. Neither should the beheading of prisoners by the rebels.

Justifying your own poor behavior by the poor behavior of others only demonstrates disposable morality. Morality is not meant to be a fair-weather friend, it is meant to be used in the worst of times as well as the best of times.

Aidon
10-15-2005, 11:05 AM
Setting the standards by the worst people in either side in warfare is an obvious mistake. It is always the worst behavior that is notorious. It is always the worst behavior that shouldn't be copied. Abu Ghraib should never set a standards for holding prisoners anywhere. Neither should the beheading of prisoners by the rebels.

Justifying your own poor behavior by the poor behavior of others only demonstrates disposable morality. Morality is not meant to be a fair-weather friend, it is meant to be used in the worst of times as well as the best of times.

It isn't justification. Its comparison. Its a reality check to those who think we were doing such horrible things by taking photos of naked prisoner in Abu Ghraib.

Was it wrong? Perhaps...but it was misdemeanor wrong compared to what they have done to us and ours.

Cantatus
10-15-2005, 01:48 PM
I have not seen a valid argument yet to say that an enemy which does dispicable things should not have it returned back to them; other than some Saturday morning serial notion that we are SUPPOSED to wear white hats.

Ah, then I suppose you'd be ok with us flying a few jetliners into buildings in Saudi Arabia killing thousands of innocent people. Maybe we should've strapped explosives to children in Vietnam to throw the enemy off guard. Hell, why stop there. We should've thrown the Germans in concentration camps in WWII.

Perhaps that's hyperbole, but if you're saying we should torture them because they torture us, where do you draw the line? Maybe it is just a "Saturday morning serial notion" to say we should be better than the enemy, but it's not one I'm ashamed to have. I like living in a country that has with morals and ethics. It'd be very hard for me to support a country that commits some of the atrocities other countries have because, "Hey, they do it!" That's fairly reprehensible in my mind. How can you call something "dispicable" while saying it's ok for us to do it? In my opinion, that's the childish notion.

Its a reality check to those who think we were doing such horrible things by taking photos of naked prisoner in Abu Ghraib.

While the pictures do make us look fairly bad, that's not the thing I really have a problem with. It's the "severe beatings" and breaking of limbs with baseball bats and things like that that which have been described. Sure, it's not as bad as the things they do to us, but that doesn't make it acceptible.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-15-2005, 02:49 PM
Setting the standards by the worst people in either side in warfare is an obvious mistake. It is always the worst behavior that is notorious. It is always the worst behavior that shouldn't be copied. Abu Ghraib should never set a standards for holding prisoners anywhere. Neither should the beheading of prisoners by the rebels.

Justifying your own poor behavior by the poor behavior of others only demonstrates disposable morality. Morality is not meant to be a fair-weather friend, it is meant to be used in the worst of times as well as the best of times.
/cough
bull****
/cough

That is YOUR morality.

Not mine.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-15-2005, 03:01 PM
Maybe it is just a "Saturday morning serial notion" to say we should be better than the enemy, but it's not one I'm ashamed to have. I like living in a country that has with morals and ethics.

That is THE thing,,,you don't.

You live in a country which procribes, laughs at, and wants anal rape for its OWN prisoners. You live a country of brutes already.

Don't give me that do-goody-good-bull****.

How many times have you laughed at a Lorena Bobbit joke? How many times have you laughed at a Michael Tyson in prison joke? How many times have you laughed at a 'don't pick up the soap' prison/crime/punishment joke?

Americans brand themselves for pleasure.
Americans pierce themselves for pleasure.
Americans mutilate themselves and other Americans for pleasure.
Americans rape themselves for pleasure.
Americans beat and torture themselves for pleasure.

If you doubt those, I can quickly give you websites, very successful, and profitable websites which make Abu Graib look like amateur crap. When Lyndie England gets out of prison she could easily make 100K a year working at Insex.com, or hogtied.com, or meninpain.com. I guarantee you of that, minimum. Far more than any other regular job a private could hope to attain after getting out of the military.

Americans are brutes. Just because you have some facile sappy treackly Michael Landon and Rona Downey mentality does not mean that anyone else does, or that I do.

Erianaiel
10-15-2005, 04:34 PM
Americans are brutes. Just because you have some facile sappy treackly Michael Landon and Rona Downey mentality does not mean that anyone else does, or that I do.

Then I can only come to the conclusion that you must find that those terrorists are justified in what they did and do.


Eri

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-15-2005, 04:55 PM
Then I can only come to the conclusion that you must find that those terrorists are justified in what they did and do.


Eri


Why would you do that?

That is a silly conclusion.

Erianaiel
10-15-2005, 05:02 PM
Why would you do that?

That is a silly conclusion.

Is it?
You justify torture with the claim that people doing it are brutish. I fail to see why the same should not apply to the opposition.


Eri

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-15-2005, 05:10 PM
Is it?
You justify torture with the claim that people doing it are brutish. I fail to see why the same should not apply to the opposition.


Eri

Poor thinking. I am sorry.

My condolences to you. Your teachers should be ashamed of themselves.


I will tell you this, with great will you CAN overcome the poor critical thinking skills your education left you with. It does take a lot of work, thinking, and time. But if you are willing to work on it, and to take the time; I assure you, you can overcome it.

Nimchip
10-15-2005, 06:37 PM
I think she meant that you are justifying why the Terrorist have all the reasons in the world to attack the U.S... because it is a nation of brutes and sociopaths that crave nothing but blood, gore and pain. Somehow their war sounds holier now. I could see myself suicide bombing any nation that threatens my culture, my people and my children with savagery any day of the week.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-15-2005, 06:43 PM
I think she meant that you are justifying why the Terrorist have all the reasons in the world to attack the U.S... because it is a nation of brutes and sociopaths that crave nothing but blood, gore and pain. I could see myself suicide bombing any nation that threatens my culture, my people and my children with savagery any day of the week.

Keep going.

You need one more step.

It is a simple one, you just need to see it for yourself.

Nimchip
10-15-2005, 06:46 PM
Fact is I wouldn't succumb to any of that because quite frankly i'm just a liberal with a facile sappy treackly Michael Landon and Rona Downey mentality. I'm simply putting myself in their feet as far as what you're saying.

Cantatus
10-16-2005, 02:18 AM
How many times have you laughed at a Lorena Bobbit joke? How many times have you laughed at a Michael Tyson in prison joke? How many times have you laughed at a 'don't pick up the soap' prison/crime/punishment joke?


Ah, here's the thing. There's a big difference between what a person does and what the government does:

Americans brand themselves for pleasure.
Americans pierce themselves for pleasure.
Americans mutilate themselves and other Americans for pleasure.
Americans rape themselves for pleasure.
Americans beat and torture themselves for pleasure.

Again, big difference between willingly doing something or having something done to yourself than using it as a punishment on someone else, or do you not see that? I hardly consider someone a "brute" that willingly subjects themselves to a certain behavior. Do I think it a little weird that some people like to be tied down and beat for sexual gratification? Sure, but it's not the same thing as breaking a prisoners arm with a baseball bat. It's a far stretch to draw that comparison.

What people do in their private lives is really none of my business. If you want to prudishly label them "brutes" for it, that's your business. However, these people are not representatives of my country. They're not overthrowing a dictator because of humans right violations and then doing the same thing to their own prisoners.

But, I noticed you skipped my question. If it's ok to torture someone because their government tortures our people, where do you draw the line? Is it ok to fly planes into their buildings and kill innocent people because they did it to us? It is ok to strap small children with explosives because they did that? Is it ok to put Germans in concentration camps? Would you support those things, too?

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-16-2005, 03:22 AM
But, I noticed you skipped my question. If it's ok to torture someone because their government tortures our people,
Sure, I will play the hypthetical game with ya, might be fun.

Yes, if there is no contract between the two enemies which forbid certain behavior. That is to say Quid pro quo. Torture them if that is part of their culture? Sure, why not? That is what they are use to. That is what they expect. Actually, I would think that doubling or ten-folding whatever they normally found acceptable would probably be more effective. If there is a contract with them, and they break it, then twenty-fold it, until then no.

I remember watching this documentary on PBS, back before they had channels on cable(before dish satellite at least). There were these interviews of former Viet Cong POWs(our forces had them). They were laughing and holding the US in contempt because, if the places were reversed they would have tortured their captives, and our forces did not do that. They said it was a sign of weakness, and that the US lost that war because they were cowards and did not have the resolve to do what it took to win the war, and break the enemy's spirit. Weak.

Those Jihadists want to kill me more than they want to kill Jews. I have no problem killing those who would kill me. Kill all the Jihadists until there are no more left, or until they no longer want to kill me, whichever comes first. I suppose you have never met any Jihadists, I have. You can't change their mind with rational argument, or tea and crumpets. I know what you are going to say "Kill one Jihadist, 3 will sprout up", to which I will say, kill them too. Eventually they will get the point.

where do you draw the line?
Where ever I wished to. Wherever it is efficient or convenient.

Is it ok to fly planes into their buildings and kill innocent people because they did it to us?
I would find that more than inefficient. Is killing civilians acceptable? Yes. Their civilians, that is. If it is useful to do so. If not,,,don't.

It is ok to strap small children with explosives because they did that?
Why would I do that? My children? Your children? or Their children? Whose children? Why would that be efficient? How would that be effective in defeating my enemy? Personally I would use every method which demoralizes and dispirits them, then multiply that by 10 times. Whatever terrorizes terrorists efficiently, do that until they give up, or are all gone. If it does not make them give up or change, then why do it?

Is it ok to put Germans in concentration camps?
Are you talking about WW2? You are talking about the NAZIs?, Hell ya! I would have fired up the ovens myself and shoved every NAZI I could in. Well, not the engineers or the scientists, I would have kept those ones around.

Am I a Kurtz or a Marlow with regard to war?
Whichever one brings victory to my side, and defeat to the enemy.

Anka
10-16-2005, 06:53 AM
While you are stuck in an 'us' and 'them' mentality you will only create enemies and continue to find enemies everywhere. Are the Vietnamese still some of 'them'? How about the Japanese? The both tortured US soldiers 20 or 60 years ago. How about the Lebanese or Algerians? There's some probably some Lebanese and Algerians amongst the insurgents in Iraq so are all Algerians and Lebanese part of 'them' or are they some of 'us'? How about British Muslims, my countrymen, a few of them are terrorists, so are they all some of 'them' or some of 'us'? How about Americans Muslims, and their families, are they some of 'them'?

Terrorists don't come with a sign on their back saying "I'm one of them". How do you make a decision about who you torture?

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-16-2005, 07:41 AM
I am not stuck.
Rather open minded, really.
Thought that last post was rather radical, myself.

In regard to the rest of your post. I have white shoes with white laces, and brown shoes with black laces. I have green shoes with green laces. I have black shoes with black laces. I have brown shoes with brown laces. I even have green boots with camo laces. And brown boots with brown laces and brown soles. Sometimes I just try on shoes to see if they fit, and if they do, sometimes I buy them. I just took a pair of black boots with black laces back, 6 months after I bought them, because the label says that they were leather when in fact they were not leather at all, but plastic. Because the store had some other shoes on clearance, I just got 2 new pairs of shoes for free by turning them back in(but I mentioned them already).

And, now, because my white shoes I already have, with white laces, are a little scuffed up, I have to go and buy a new pair of those now. Which is a good thing. I used to buy the Adidas Stan Smith models, but they changed the design and no longer fit me, I now get the White Reebok Classic model. Looks good, last long, and is ALL leather. I hope that answers the rest of your post.

Cantatus
10-16-2005, 08:57 AM
I suppose I could've asked the question straight out, but I like using hypotheticals to make my point.

I have no problem killing those who would kill me.

Killing and torture are two different things. We haven't signed various agreements saying we won't kill the enemy. The military handbook doesn't forbid soldiers from killing the enemy. I'm not against killing the enemy.

Eventually they will get the point.

Ah, you mean like the Palestinians and the Israelis? They've been going at it for how long now? Perhaps they are using the same logic, which doesn't appear to be working for them. Killing alone doesn't win wars, but this is not the topic at hand.

Is killing civilians acceptable? Yes. Their civilians, that is.

And there's the rub. That's pretty much summed up as, "If it's happening to us it's evil. If we're doing it, it's a-ok!" to which my response is, "If it's evil when they're doing it, how come it's not evil when we are?" How come it's acceptible for us to kill their civilians but not for them to kill ours? How come it's horrible for them to torture our soldiers, but ok when we do it? Just because they did it first? "He started it!"

I suppose from our eyes, it's not evil because we're the one doing it... just like what the enemy likely thinks when they're doing it versus when we're doing it to them.

I think Anka has a good point. What about what other countries see? If we're labeling certain behavior as despicable, and then turning around and doing it too, is it a big shock when those countries find our actions despicable? And I suppose you'll reply with how you don't care what other countries think, but it's usually very important - especially in war - to retain some allies. Afterall, you don't want the countries that have suddenly started distancing themselves from you for your hypocritical actions to start aiding the enemy. You don't want them to start harboring terrorists. Of couse, then there's the economic implications for pissing off an ally. America may have the most powerful military on the planet, but there is a limit to how many countries we can fight at once.

Aidon
10-16-2005, 10:53 AM
Ah, you mean like the Palestinians and the Israelis? They've been going at it for how long now? Perhaps they are using the same logic, which doesn't appear to be working for them. Killing alone doesn't win wars, but this is not the topic at hand.


Actually, the problem in that senario is that Israel has heavily restrained itself over the decades.

If Israel had permitted itself to wage unrestricted war with the moral terpitude the Palestinians have shown, that war would have been over in a year with a few hundred thousand Palestinian deaths. But Israel holds itself to a higher standard.

Israel proves that you can be reasonable as you like...Arabs will still blow your citizens up. They do not believe in compromise. They believe in lies and deciet while they regroup and then killing more children until they win the war.

I don't think the West will ever win against modern Radical Islam. They are soulless beasts. I just hope Western Society doesn't have to revert to inhuman means before my lifetime is over.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-16-2005, 04:23 PM
And there's the rub. That's pretty much summed up as, "If it's happening to us it's evil. If we're doing it, it's a-ok!" to which my response is, "If it's evil when they're doing it, how come it's not evil when we are?" How come it's acceptible for us to kill their civilians but not for them to kill ours? How come it's horrible for them to torture our soldiers, but ok when we do it? Just because they did it first? "He started it!"

That is TOO funny. Using Relativism AND Absolutism in the same paragraph. Make up your mind. In the same question even.

Panamah
10-16-2005, 04:33 PM
That is TOO funny. Using Relativism AND Absolutism in the same paragraph. Make up your mind. In the same question even.

LOL! That was a dodge if I ever saw one.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-16-2005, 04:44 PM
I hope you don't mind getting smeared by association, Aidon. But that was a rather good post.

Very accurate.

I don't think that that higher moral standard was very much more than American(Western) moral(and political) ambiguity and ambivalence holding them back though.

And their own history.
I just have no, nor would have had any, moral ambivalence in killing every last person who wants to kill me and my children. That is absolute. But I completely understand the decisions which were made by a people whose nation was formed from the fires of genocide, to avoid perpetrating it themselves. But if you have an enemy whose soul purpose is to see you dead, if there ever was a justification for it, that is it.

More simply put. If there is a culture of people who want me dead, that culture needs to be ended. Absolutely.

And all that "I can't figure out which shoes to wear in the morning because they all look alike" smoke that Anka blew up there??? Only shows that he lacks imagination and resourcefulness. Not that the idea is wrong.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-16-2005, 04:45 PM
LOL! That was a dodge if I ever saw one.

So does that mean you are relatively absolute? Or absolutely relative?

Anka
10-16-2005, 05:15 PM
If there is a culture of people who want me dead, that culture needs to be ended. Absolutely.

So what culture does want you dead? Do British Muslims want you dead? Do Lebanese muslims want you dead? What cultures are you going to genocide so satisfy your personal security?

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-16-2005, 05:29 PM
Per the request from Panamah. This too should be fun.

I suppose I could've asked the question straight out, but I like using hypotheticals to make my point.
Nothing wrong with that.


Killing and torture are two different things. We haven't signed various agreements saying we won't kill the enemy. The military handbook doesn't forbid soldiers from killing the enemy. I'm not against killing the enemy.
Yes they are, two separate things. But if you have no agreement with me(or my country) there is no reason not to; if you can achieve your goals with it. If you are trying to kill me, you are merely meat.



Ah, you mean like the Palestinians and the Israelis? They've been going at it for how long now? Perhaps they are using the same logic, which doesn't appear to be working for them. Killing alone doesn't win wars, but this is not the topic at hand.

Since, 1946 as a nation. Longer still, back before the common era. Isreal could have eradicated those who wanted to kill them, long ago.


And there's the rub. That's pretty much summed up as, "If it's happening to us it's evil. If we're doing it, it's a-ok!" to which my response is, "If it's evil when they're doing it, how come it's not evil when we are?" How come it's acceptible for us to kill their civilians but not for them to kill ours? How come it's horrible for them to torture our soldiers, but ok when we do it? Just because they did it first? "He started it!"
"There is the rub" is an expression of doubt. I don't believe in evil. I don't believe in good. If they torture one of our prisoners, we torture 10. If they torture for a day, we can torture for 10 days. Pain, inflict pain 10 times more painful. Only if there is an agreement to NOT torture our respective prisoners should we not torture. If they have the agreement, and still torture, 20 fold it.


I suppose from our eyes, it's not evil because we're the one doing it... just like what the enemy likely thinks when they're doing it versus when we're doing it to them.
Why should I look through their eyes. That is Cultural Relativism. And that is a philosophical paradox. It is a useless philosophy, unless you are a professional anthropologist. My only purpose in understanding the enemy is making him quit, or killing him. Understanding "that he is human just like me" is stupid and fallacious. If he is trying to kill me, see above, meat. I have my own eyes, they work just fine. I don't need to walk in his moccasins to realize that my leather Gore-tex lined boots with Vibram souls are a hell of a lot better than his moccasins. The notion that I must use another's eyes is a silly sophmore illusion, a silly notion. Mine work fine.

I don't need to empathize with him. And find out that when he gets home from a hard days building belt and car bombs, that the little Jihadist woman in the burka cooked him a nice meal over camel dung tonight. And that he has little Jihadist children who run up to greet and hug him, just like other daddies. They say, "Daddy, Daddy, How many Infidel heads did you cut off today?". He says, "Only two, my children", to which his lovely little Jihadist children reply, "We love you Daddy". And when he tucks them into bed, he reads them stories just like non-Jihadist daddies do. And the little Jihadist children pray to the same god that I do, they are just like my children, "Now I lay myself to sleep, kill some Jews just like sheep, and if I die before I wake, a hundred Infidels I pray to take..."

I think Anka has a good point. What about what other countries see? If we're labeling certain behavior as despicable, and then turning around and doing it too, I only saw fear and lack of imagination. I, and I am not even an expert, can come up with a half dozen novel ways for finding out who are Jihadists and killing them. He sees a whole bunch of people who look like terrorists and he is afraid of hurting their feelings. I see an opportunity. There are a whole lot of Americans, Jordanians, Brits, and whoever who LOOK just like Jihadists, I see that is a powerful ASSET. Just because Anka lacks imagination, does not mean that I do.

is it a big shock when those countries find our actions despicable? So? They already hate us. We have been the Ugly Americans since the 50's. We have been Gringos for over a hundred. Get use to it, other people in other countries hate you. They hated you before you were born. Get use to it. Only when they try and kill you does that really change. And then kill them.

And I suppose you'll reply with how you don't care what other countries think, but it's usually very important
The US is THE military superpower on this planet. We don't need other countries' military aid anymore. That is one of the biggest reasons why we paid the price to win the Cold War. So that we could do what we want. If the Euros or whoever don't like it, go for it, Declare war on us. See how far that will get you.

- especially in war - to retain some allies. Afterall, you don't want the countries that have suddenly started distancing themselves from you for your hypocritical actions to start aiding the enemy.
What is hypocritical? If I do not have a contract or treaty with those who are being tortured, there is not hypocrisy. Besides this is only predicated on the idea that torture is part of their culture. In the case of the Jihadists, we KNOW they torture. We have NO treaty with them to not torture them. No hypocrisy.

You don't want them to start harboring terrorists.
Really? France will put up Jihadists in Parisian hotel rooms. Bomb the **** out of them if they do. What a silly idea. Or are you more talking about Malasia or the Philipines?


Of couse, then there's the economic implications for pissing off an ally.
We already ran that discussion 2 months ago. I just don't see it happening.

America may have the most powerful military on the planet, but there is a limit to how many countries we can fight at once. True. You nor I know how many that is. I bet you even with Afganistan and Iraq we could take a couple more Jihadist countries(those that train, house, abet Jihadists). I bet you we could take France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain no problem, right now. Or concurrently with The Sudan, Chad, and Libya. Militarily, that is. But that is what you mentioned. We could take almost the entire Mediterranian and Southern Europe, minus Egypt and Israel.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-16-2005, 05:30 PM
So what culture does want you dead? Do British Muslims want you dead? Do Lebanese muslims want you dead? What cultures are you going to genocide so satisfy your personal security?

Jihadist culture.

Anka
10-16-2005, 06:43 PM
Well it can be pretty hard to spot a Jihadist. There was one working in a school for disabled children in my city, and nobody seemed to spot him. Another had played a game of football with local friends the day before he committed a suicide bombing, nobody spotted him.

I am not even an expert, can come up with a half dozen novel ways for finding out who are Jihadists and killing them.

Better get busy then. There's no shortage of people who need help finding Jihadists.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-16-2005, 07:08 PM
Well it can be pretty hard to spot a Jihadist. There was one working in a school for disabled children in my city, and nobody seemed to spot him. Another had played a game of football with local friends the day before he committed a suicide bombing, nobody spotted him.



Better get busy then. There's no shortage of people who need help finding Jihadists.

We just deported three from my little town back to the Middle East, by the FBI. I personally would have had them killed, ./shrug.

Just because YOU can't find them, does not mean that they are not findable.

These are not Columbian drug dealers that the DEA needs to bring to trial. You can just kill them. What is the hang-up?

1) Set up our own cells to recruit them.
2) Bounties, motivate them highly
3) Infiltrators, motivate them highly
4) Delta force style, small raid focus, instead of large scale war focus.
5) Kill them when you find them
6) Counter-insurgency. Infect them with propaganda, a cell learning(thinking) that their leader is a mole,,, they will eat themselves up.

You see all these Muslims everywhere as some kind of liability. I see them as a recruitment base.

Hell, think of cold war espionage with no nuclear weapons, or brinksmanship,,,it should not be all that hard to find ways into them, infect them, and kill them. If you stop thinking that this the 1960's, that is.

Anka
10-16-2005, 09:19 PM
You're trying to wage the cold war on terrorist cells and accusing other people of thinking in the 60's?

Summarily executing your own countrymen, without trial, on the basis of intelligence gathered from moles and spies, is a pretty good way to destroy your country. I'm pretty sure that isn't in the constitution.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-16-2005, 09:40 PM
Not MY country.

Theirs.

Why would I do that in my country? That would be next to silly. Besides, most of them are over there, and not here. That would be inefficient.




Talk about being stuck.

Panamah
10-16-2005, 11:28 PM
So does that mean you are relatively absolute? Or absolutely relative?

Double-dodge! Going to go for 3?

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-16-2005, 11:54 PM
You are no fun.

/grin.

Anka
10-17-2005, 08:48 AM
Not MY country.

Theirs.

Why would I do that in my country?

Because there will be jihadists in your country. It is only a matter of time.

Cantatus
10-17-2005, 09:12 PM
If Israel had permitted itself to wage unrestricted war with the moral terpitude the Palestinians have shown, that war would have been over in a year with a few hundred thousand Palestinian deaths. But Israel holds itself to a higher standard.

You're only looking at it from one side. Perhaps it's the Palestinians who have the, "Kill them until they get the point" thing, which, like I said, doesn't work.

I mean, would us Americans backdown if all of the sudden we had a bunch of terrorist attacks start in the country? Killing the enemy doesn't often get them to back down. It typically does the opposite.

So? They already hate us. We have been the Ugly Americans since the 50's. We have been Gringos for over a hundred. Get use to it, other people in other countries hate you. They hated you before you were born. Get use to it. Only when they try and kill you does that really change. And then kill them.

The whole world doesn't hate us. Some countries might not be particularly fond of us, and some may just tolerate us, but there are a lot out there that still like us. Regardless, it's good to have allies. I'm not a big fan of isolationism.

Really? France will put up Jihadists in Parisian hotel rooms. Bomb the **** out of them if they do. What a silly idea.

Yeah, let's start bombing every country in the world. I'm sure that'll work just great. :rolleyes:

What is hypocritical? If I do not have a contract or treaty with those who are being tortured, there is not hypocrisy. Besides this is only predicated on the idea that torture is part of their culture. In the case of the Jihadists, we KNOW they torture. We have NO treaty with them to not torture them. No hypocrisy.

We denounce a dictator in another country for the horrible things he does to people, then we turn around and commit the same sort of actions. How is that not hypocritical? That's the very definition of "Do as I say, not as I do."

Of course, you're also assuming that everyone in Guantanamo Bay is a jihadist. That has proven to not be the case as we've released many people from there already. Some of these people have been Canadian, Russian and British citizens, which throws your whole "it's part of their culture" argument out the window. Something tells me they don't torture discriminately.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-18-2005, 02:01 AM
You're only looking at it from one side. Perhaps it's the Palestinians who have the, "Kill them until they get the point" thing, which, like I said, doesn't work.
Works all the time. Why do you say it does not work?

I mean, would us Americans backdown if all of the sudden we had a bunch of terrorist attacks start in the country?
Americans tend to be very forgetful pansies. So whether we back down or not is really not in dispute. In the real world The Wolverines would have lost, and everyone would have been speaking Spanish.

Killing the enemy doesn't often get them to back down. It typically does the opposite.

Prove it. You will eventually run out of them. We already know that they will attack us when unprovoked, its not like they really need some martyrdom or reason to attack us. It is a win-win situation. Jihadists want to go to Nirvana by dieing for Allah and we will have less jihadists; we are just helping them out. See that is the really cool thing about Jihadists, is there really is no moral or ethical reason NOT to kill them, or tactical reason for that matter. They want to die for their Holy War, we can help them. They want to kill us, there is nothing immoral about killing someone intent on killing you. No moral baggage. And you are doing a community service in the mean time. We know that they will kill us without provocation, so the 'we might instigate or provoke them" argument fails from the get go. See, clean and simple.


The whole world doesn't hate us. Some countries might not be particularly fond of us, and some may just tolerate us, but there are a lot out there that still like us. Regardless, it's good to have allies. I'm not a big fan of isolationism.
Whatever, I am just saying that if people around the world hate us, who really gives a crap? Rich American tourists?. I don't care about them, anymore than I care about French opinion.


Yeah, let's start bombing every country in the world. I'm sure that'll work just great. :rolleyes:
I said France. They need a good bombing every 50 years or so. Like an enema. They are past due.

We denounce a dictator in another country for the horrible things he does to people, then we turn around and commit the same sort of actions. How is that not hypocritical? That's the very definition of "Do as I say, not as I do."
What are we in, Sunday School. What a childish notion. Next you will tell me that there is a ghosts, gods and demons, good and evil. Booo! There is nothing hypocritical about doing something that is in our own best interests. Less jihadists is in our own best interests. Do it for the children!

Of course, you're also assuming that everyone in Guantanamo Bay is a jihadist. That has proven to not be the case as we've released many people from there already. Some of these people have been Canadian, Russian and British citizens, which throws your whole "it's part of their culture" argument out the window.
Why do you think we have Guantanamo Bay? It is so that we can do stuff to prisoners and not be in the US. No one at that place has any US civil rights, including the soldiers sweating and working their asses off for you. What and who are these Canadians, Russians, and Brits are you talking about, anyways?

Something tells me they don't torture discriminately.
Who? This sentence doesn't make sense.

Making people get naked and form a pyramid is not torture. It is a college prank, at the most. Hell, I can't tell you all the stuff I had to do in my underwear in college, but makes most of what I saw chicken****(the Lynndie England stuff). Piss on a Quoran?, **** it, you have got to be ****ing kidding me.

Cantatus
10-18-2005, 05:31 AM
Prove it. You will eventually run out of them.

We're not just talking about killing a "them" here, but an ideal. That's why we need to install a democratic government there and not just look like cutthroat savages intent on killing anyone who crosses us. That's what the terrorist recruitment camps want. In their eyes, we have provoked them, and they just use this as more ammo to increase their ranks. If we truly want to stop more and more jihadists from rising up to take the place of the ones we've killed (because we've just riled them up), we need to show them that we're not the people Al Qaeda makes us look like.

Like I said, I'm ok with killing people who are going to kill us, but you can't kill the people who are going to be enraged by their deaths and rise up to take their place preemptively.

Killing the people with that ideal does not kill the ideal.

But, this is getting completely off-topic. Torture and killing are two different things. Just because I'm against torturing prisoners, doesn't mean I must be against killing the jihadists. However, I'm not discussing the war in Iraq, but the treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Whatever, I am just saying that if people around the world hate us, who really gives a crap?

Lots of people. Our government, as a matter of fact. While Bush has done a lot to turn certain countries against us, we still do shmooze to retain our allies and trading partners. (Saudi Arabia is a good example of this.)

I said France.

You gave the example of France, but your idea was that we should bomb every ally that aids the enemy (or, in this case, just because they are France...), which as I pointed out, is a possibility if we start looking like Saddam redux to other countries. Of course, it's sort of funny that you consider a country we should bomb and kill their innocent civilains repeatedly an ally, but whatever.

What are we in, Sunday School. What a childish notion. Next you will tell me that there is a ghosts, gods and demons, good and evil. Booo! There is nothing hypocritical about doing something that is in our own best interests. Less jihadists is in our own best interests. Do it for the children!

Do you not know the definition of "hypocrisy" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypocrisy)? Twist the word however you want, saying one thing and doing another is hypocritical. There is something hypocritical "about doing something that is in our best interest" if we're denouncing other countries that do the same thing. And notice that what I'm referring to as hypocritical is the treatment of the prisoners, not the killing of the jihadists, perhaps you're getting confused on that.

Why do you think we have Guantanamo Bay? It is so that we can do stuff to prisoners and not be in the US. No one at that place has any US civil rights, including the soldiers sweating and working their asses off for you.

Yep, real handy for our government professing freedom to have a place where we can strip the civil rights from people. As I said, many people have gone there have turned out to be innocent, but that's usually after years of being detained with no legal representation.

And the soldiers there have just as many rights as they would serving anywhere else in the military. No clue where you get the idea that they don't.

What and who are these Canadians, Russians, and Brits are you talking about, anyways?

Here is a list of detainees by nationality. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/guantanamo_nationalities.html) You'll notice, of course, how many have been released from Guantanamo Bay from the countries I listed, which just goes to show you how many people are there that have been deemed innocent, which could've been getting tortured in the meanwhile.

Making people get naked and form a pyramid is not torture.

You keep implying that I consider this torture. I don't. I consider the things I listed on Page 2 (http://eq.forums.thedruidsgrove.org/showpost.php?p=177596&postcount=29) and Page 5 (http://eq.forums.thedruidsgrove.org/showpost.php?p=178285&postcount=64) torture. Not sure why I keep having to reiterate that.

Panamah
10-31-2005, 01:12 PM
Excellent Editorial (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucgg/20051029/cm_ucgg/thedarkheartofdickcheney;_ylt=AhHiuUQ4yODS_E1qYIol WLIlr7sF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl) about the Marquis de Sade of America, Dick Cheney:

THE DARK HEART OF DICK CHENEY

By Georgie Anne Geyer Fri Oct 28, 8:12 PM ET

WASHINGTON --
Dick Cheney is, by all accounts, probably the oddest -- and the most dourly ambitious -- duck in the administration's pond of wing-flapping, sky-diving and prideful birds.
ADVERTISEMENT

He rarely speaks, running things quietly and secretly from behind the White House's closed doors, where he maintains his own administrative staff (roughly 60 persons, almost as many as the president's). When he does speak, it is usually either a sarcastic observation or rejoinder. As to his knowledge of
Iraq, many remember how, on "Meet the Press" just before the Iraq war, he told Tim Russert, "I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators."

He is an enigma to many who have known him. President George H.W. Bush almost pleaded with a friend of mine, a journalist, in Houston recently: "Please -- tell me -- what has happened to Cheney?"

There was always a brooding, Hobbesian Cheney just beneath the misleading openness he learned in his native Wyoming. But this week, the vice president took a turn into the deepest heart of human darkness. This week, unprecedented in history, an elected vice president of the United States of America proposed that Congress legally authorize the torture of foreigners by Americans.

The Washington Post titled its devastating editorial "Vice President for Torture." I would say that the deceptive man from sunny Wyoming has become the Marquis de Sade of America. Think about it -- he is insistent upon making torturers of many of our young soldiers -- your children.

In both the Afghan and the Iraq war, the U.S. has been involved -- as never before in ANY war -- with carefully conceived methods of torture -- "waterboarding" or simulated drowning, mock execution, beatings until death, the deliberate withholding of pain medication, the burning and desecration of enemy bodies, and every possible form of sexual perversion.

These acts were the direct outcome of the president's, Cheney's and Donald Rumsfeld's errant dismissal of the Geneva Accords, to which we are a signatory, of an international treaty against torture negotiated and ratified by the Reagan administration and, not least, of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishment."

Although such directions would HAVE to have come from the top, not one top-ranking general or officer has been punished. Only the privates from West Virginia and the Carolinas, who would be protected by a responsible military from debauching their service -- and themselves -- with such sick acts, are in jail.

But now the grand inquisitor Cheney, who took five deferments in the Vietnam War rather than experience it for himself, wants more. Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), who DOES know what war is all about, put forward an amendment to the $440 billion military spending bill banning the military and all government agencies from engaging in torture. Ninety senators voted for the new law, including 46 Republicans. So Cheney stepped in with a further amendment to the McCain amendment, which transfers torture to the
CIA to use against the many foreign prisoners it is secretly holding abroad. These men have "disappeared," just like they do in the old banana republics and the gulags of the totalitarians.

"I suspect what Cheney's been saying to McCain is that we've got a few people who know the whereabouts of
Osama bin Laden and the others," political scientist Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institution mused with me. "That we've got to use any means necessary to get information from very specific people. He's looking toward short-term goals without any understanding of the long-term consequences, which gets to the underlying reason why McCain is pushing ... The rules are in place to protect US. If this becomes official policy, then the enemy says that they can do the same thing."

But anyone who has studied the use of torture knows it doesn't work. Prisoners will tell their tormentors exactly what they want to hear. Among Americans in
Afghanistan and Iraq, too often, torture has become the "sport" of sociopaths. (According to Cherif Bassiouni, the renowned human rights and international law professor at DePaul University in Chicago, with fully 30 percent of our army recruits being kids with criminal sentences who were allowed to work their way out in the military, we are already courting trouble.)

Bassiouni told me that he has been called in as an expert witness on some of the trials of the foreigners held at Guantanamo. "You look at them," he told me with a deep impatience, "and you see how insignificant they are! One guy was a driver in Kandahar for one of the terrorists -- for a week. In my No. 2 case, the fellow operated a video shop."

Bassiouni then told of the private contractors who operate wholly on their own. He outlined how team after team of interrogators comes in. The first team says they "got something," so the second has to "get something," too. They charge $200 per hour per person to interrogate, and more than likely, they draw out their time clock by torturing prisoners. For four men for four hours, that's $3,200 of taxpayer money paid for the ugly demeaning of everything America once stood for. With the neocons and Cheney and their dark lusts, we are eating our own principles alive.

"America has lost its capacity for being indignant," Dr. Bassiouni summed up. "Where has our capacity for indignation gone? When a nation loses its respect for the Constitution and its treaties, what is next? And leaving even that aside, the next American serviceman who is being tortured -- and we can't go to his rescue -- will show us exactly what we have done."

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-31-2005, 04:01 PM
Though a relatively poor writer, De Sade is one of my heros.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-31-2005, 04:03 PM
Do it for the children.

/puke

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-31-2005, 04:52 PM
the next American serviceman who is being tortured -- and we can't go to his rescue -- will show us exactly what we have done."


What a completely stupid thing to say.

I bet this moron is teaching, right?

edit: yup, teaching, and a lawyer.