Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Politics (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=260)
-   -   Torture (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=137624)

  • Oct 9, 2007, 06:53 PM
    BABRAM
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon
    Hello:

    Go ahead, tell me how wonking a guy upside his head repeatedly ain't torture.

    excon



    It is torture. Now I'm not sure just which specific occasion this torture is the subject of, but in general torture is most often about getting information. And although the info when received may not be that accurate, it's still a start. Then there is torture just to torture with no reason. And "yes," unfortunately America has been guilty in isolated occasions. Mostly out of vengeance, on rare occasions in our other conflicts, as opposed to the stupid idiots that made the mostly embarrassing pyramid of naked detainees in the Iraq War. When it comes to torturing just to torture with no reason, the Japanese were notorious for this when they invaded the Philippines, and also the Vietcong back in Nam.


    Bobby
  • Oct 10, 2007, 06:49 AM
    ETWolverine


    First of all, which war do you mean? The one in Iraq or the overall war on terror? I equate the two, but many people do not, mostly for political reasons. So what do you mean by "this war"?

    Second, do I believe that terrorism will cease to exist one the war on terror is over? No. But I expect the THREAT of terrorism to become more manageble, less prolific, and more of a local threat and less of an international one.

    Third, I remember back in the 70s people asking "Do you really think Communism can ever be defeated in a cold war?" The answer to that was "No, but I think the SOVIET UNION can be defeated, and Communism can be made less prolific and threatening to the world at large." And guess what... I was right.

    The same is true of the war on terrorism. Can we eliminate terrorism completely? No, and it would be absurd to think that we could. But we can defeat Al Qaeda and its affiliates, cut the influence that the terrorists have, kill the leadership, break up the networks, find the cells, and turn terrorism into a more manageble local threat rather than an international one.

    Elliot
  • Oct 10, 2007, 06:59 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
    IF torture produced better intelligence, and therefore more security, we could debate whether it was worth engaging in. Since it doesn't, the point is moot, unless satisfying your thirst for vengeance is more important to you than security.

    Well, that's a mighty big assumption being made by a non-expert in the field of torture and interrogation. Or do you have some background in intelligence gathering that you haven't informed us about? How do you know it doesn't produce better intelligence? What is your basis for that claim? Did you just happen to hear it somewhere, or do you have clinical evidence to back it up.

    And if torture were NOT an effective way of getting information from an enemy, why would our special operations guys be trained in SERE (torture resistance)? If torture weren't a good way of getting information, there would be no reason to teach our people how to resist torture.

    Plus, it seems to me that whatever methods our intelligence guys are using, they are producing credible leads that are leading to the capture of additional terrorists, breaking up of terrorist cells, foiling of terrorist plots, etc. If you say the intelligence guys are using torture, I'll take your word for it. But it seems clear to me that if they ARE using torture, then torture is an effective method of gaining credible and actionable intelligence. The proof is in the pudding... whatever the interrogators are doing is working.

    So what is the basis for your statement that "torture doesn't produce better intelligence"?

    Elliot
  • Oct 10, 2007, 07:17 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine
    So what is the basis for your statement that "torture doesn't produce better intelligence"?

    Hello El:

    Torture MIGHT produce results... So does ethnic cleansing... At some point in time, one has to look at their actions rather than the results.

    I liked us a lot better when we hadn't yet descended into this slime pit... As a matter of fact, I don't like us AT ALL for doing that. I shed some of my blood for this country. I did it for the values we used to hold. I'm sorry you don't hold them anymore. If your values are now the ones we go by, I'm leaving... This isn't my country anymore.

    You rightwingers always say that you're not the first to do it (Clinton did), so it's OK to do it now. BS. You ARE the first. I know my country - and YOU ARE THE FIRST.

    excon
  • Oct 10, 2007, 08:00 AM
    Dark_crow
    Guys….there is torture, and then there is torture. But to speak of torture without a referent is just senseless.
  • Oct 10, 2007, 08:13 AM
    excon
    Hello again, DC:

    We HAVE a referent. The secret memos that were recently disclosed, authorized 1) head slapping, 2) waterboarding, and 3) extreme temperatures. Those are SPECIFIC torture techniques. Nothing generic there.

    The Wolverine understands the specifics too. He just thinks they're OK.

    excon
  • Oct 10, 2007, 08:14 AM
    tomder55
    DC I agree .But we had posts on the issue of definitions on the other board and they got redundant . Suffice it to say that I think no one in the country supports Uday Hussein methods .
  • Oct 10, 2007, 08:19 AM
    Dark_crow
    There was no torture in the prison that we know of. Anyone, anyone can be broken in 6 days, most in 2 or 3 days…that I am sure about.
  • Oct 10, 2007, 08:22 AM
    excon
    Hello again, tom:

    Yahhh, our torture is better than Uday's, so it's ok…. But, you're not alone in your thinking…

    I'll tell you what DID surprise me. All the Democratic presidential front runners said they would torture somebody too, if they thought he had valuable information.

    I guess I'M the odd man out.

    excon
  • Oct 10, 2007, 08:34 AM
    Dark_crow
    Tom

    Some people just want to inflict pain. During the cold war interrogation methods were brought to a form of art by the CIA; torture like Uday Hussein methods was seldom used. Particularly effective methods don't involve butchery, let's call it for what it is and make a distinction between interrogation, torture and butchery.
  • Oct 10, 2007, 08:40 AM
    tomder55
    This goes back to that definition issue. excon will tell you that you know torture when you see it and places no distinction ;harsh interrogation is the equivalent to torture as you see in post #49
  • Oct 10, 2007, 08:52 AM
    excon
    Hello again:

    I didn't say that YOU know torture when you see it. Obviously, you don't. I do, however.

    Besides, I thought we WERE being specific about torture. I say that what we do (the specific techniques above) IS torture. The Wolverine agreed with me. You don't. Ok, I'm sure you will after you read the following.

    Interrogation is asking questions. It doesn't involve hitting. Hitting is something you do with your hand. Asking questions is something you do with your mouth. One is interrogation, the other is torture.

    If that's not specific enough for you, causing one to be uncomfortable due to extreme temperatures, in order to get someone to talk, is torture. Again, interrogation is something you do with your mouth. Freezing somebody out is something you do with your hand.

    Anything you do to a prisoner with your HAND in order to get him to talk, is torture.

    Are we clear now?

    excon
  • Oct 10, 2007, 08:52 AM
    Dark_crow
    Tom

    Of course interrogation can include torture and butchery by some peoples perception, the problem is with their perception, not with the definition.
  • Oct 10, 2007, 09:04 AM
    Dark_crow
    excon
    Your perception would include handcuffing, it just don't fly. To simply cause somebody mental or physical anguish don't fly, nor does the simple inflection of pain. It appears to me you are relying on dictionary definition which is a mistake because that is not the way we arrive at meaning.
  • Oct 10, 2007, 09:28 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon
    Besides, I thought we WERE being specific about torture. I say that what we do (the specific techniques above) IS torture. The Wolverine agreed with me.

    Actually, no I didn't. What I said was that I'm going to forgoe the question of "what is torture" for the purposes of this discussion, and make the assumption that you are right and it is torture. I do not necessarily agree that it is so. But for this conversation, and for the purposes of making my point, it just doesn't really matter, so I'll leave that argument off to the side for now.

    Quote:

    You don't. Ok, I'm sure you will after you read the following.

    Interrogation is asking questions. It doesn't involve hitting. Hitting is something you do with your hand. Asking questions is something you do with your mouth. One is interrogation, the other is torture.
    Sorry, but hitting alone doesn't constitute "torture". Hitting can take place on both sides... and in that instance it is called a "fight" not torture. Even when hitting takes place by one side alone, it doesn't constitute "torture". My kids hit each other all the time. One hits the other and the other comes crying to mommy or daddy. Does that constitute torture? Two school kids get into a fight and one hits the other. Is that torture? "Hitting", even in the context of doing so to obtain information does not constitute "torture".

    Quote:

    If that's not specific enough for you, causing one to be uncomfortable due to extreme temperatures, in order to get someone to talk, is torture.
    Then I guess my summer camp was guilty of torture. They took us out in middle of the night for overnight hikes (essentially forced marches), made us sleep in the woods (very cold in the mountains) and kept us awake at all hours (sleep deprivation) and made us eat lousy burnt food (which we prepared ourselves). It was a pretty rugged camp. Thus, by your definition, the camp is guilty of torture... not even to obtain information, but just for pleasure and entertainment. Ours, as it turns out. We had a ball, and most of us ended up with a cold or cough at the end of the 3 or 5-night hikes.

    Quote:

    Anything you do to a prisoner with your HAND in order to get him to talk, is torture.
    Tickling? Sex? Fingernails on a chalkboard? Do these constitute torture?

    Quote:

    Are we clear now?
    No, not really. Because YOU don't seem very clear in you definition. Your definition of turture doesn't hold true, and many harmless activities could be interpreted as "torture" by your definition.

    Furthermore, deprivation of food and water isn't something that is done with the hand. In fact it is something that your hand DOESN'T do... give the prisoner food and water. That can constitute "torture" but is something NOT done with the hand.

    How about this... if I sit there and insult the prisoner, cursing him out, insulting his religion, calling his mother and sister all sorts of nasty names, driving him first to anger and then eventually helplessness to defend himself from these insults, does that constitute torture? What if I show him pictures of his family and tell him all the nasty things I intend to do to them if he doesn't talk, driving him to despair. Is that torture? Many psychologists would put that in the category of psychological abuse and psychological torture. But I haven't done anything with my hands. It's all been done with my mouth. But I'll bet that the prisoner would complain of forceful coersion, psychological torture, abuse, etc.

    The line between torture and interrogation cannot be as easily drawn as you are attempting to do so here. Hands are NOT the only way to torture someone or drive them to psychological despair and helplessness.

    Here's how an interrogation by excon would look.

    Excon: We know that there is a container of VX gas that has been leaked into US territory. We know that you terrorists were planning on using it to make a bomb. Tell me where the VX gas is hidden!!!

    Prisoner: Go suck a goat, you camel humping piece of crap American!!!

    Excon: I'll ask you one last time. Where is the VX gas?!?!?

    Prisoner: Bite me you American bastard. Your mother has fleas and your father humps pigs.

    Excon: So your not going to give me the information I need? Even if I say "pretty please"?

    Prisoner: Kiss my a$$, you lover of sheep. Your scrotum is filled with the eggs of a thousand mosquitoes.

    Excon: Well, I can't get anything out of him. We're done here.

    The next day, a bomb full of VX gas explodes on Main Street, USA killing thousands. But at least we didn't torture any terrorists.

    Tell me I'm wrong about how you would conduct an interrogation, excon.

    Elliot
  • Oct 10, 2007, 09:39 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine
    Tell me I'm wrong about how you would conduct an interrogation?

    Hello again, El:

    You are not wrong.

    I know you guys are making hay with my definition. It was the best I could do on the fly. I think it was pretty good, actually, and you KNOW what I mean. Go ahead, have a good time. However, some people won't get sidetracked by your silliness. They KNOW it's subterfuge because you don't have real arguments to use.

    I'll take that as a win for my side.

    excon
  • Oct 10, 2007, 09:55 AM
    kindj
    I've been reading all of this with great interest.

    It seems to me that the whole issue will never be resolved.

    One, no one can positively identify and define what constitutes "torture."

    Two, "torture" has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen because no one can positively identify and define what it is.

    My students are taking a practice version of the state test they'll have to take in a couple of months. They absolutely despise it. By making them take it, am I "torturing" them? I have two that I guarantee will lose it on test day due to anxiety. Is the state therefore guilty of "torture?" After all, the goal is to get information from them.

    I carpool with two female teachers for two hours a day. They both like to talk. A lot. Am I being tortured by this estrogen saturated environment?

    The whole debate is pointless, I think. We all know that governments will do what governments will do, and they don't give a tinker's damn what you and I think about it. So unless you're planning a revolution, I don't see the point. Gripe, moan, and sign petitions to your heart's content. The government's methods will descend again into super-secrecy, no one will know, people will congratulate themselves on forcing the government to change their ways.

    I went to the school El mentioned, the one called SERE school. It sucked. Bad. Hardest thing I've ever gone through. Funny thing is, y'all ain't even hit the tip of the iceberg yet as far as "interrogation techniques" go. There's stuff they did to us in that school that would make John Wayne puke, and that was AMERICANS training AMERICANS.

    So if everyone knows torture doesn't work, why in the hell would Uncle Sam shell out major bucks to send knuckle-draggers like me to hell and back to learn how to resist it? Why would there be entire divisions of people in virtually EVERY government--civilized and not--whose sole jobs are to tweak, refine, and devise new ways to extract information from someone unwilling to give it?

    Sorry to break some people's bubbles, but it WORKS. Sure, there's different styles for different types of prisoners, and you have to find the style that'll work for your guy. But guess what? They ALL involve coercion, pain, discomfort, and confusion to one degree or another, plus a whole host of other things that you'd probably rather not know about. When you get right down to it, the basics of effective interrogation is really just "good cop/bad cop" on steroids. You can't have the good cop without the bad, and vice versa.
  • Oct 10, 2007, 10:15 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine
    Excon: We know that there is a container of VX gas that has been leaked into US territory. We know that you terrorists were planning on using it to make a bomb. Tell me where the VX gas is hidden!!!

    Hello again, El:

    The problem with right-wingers is you aren't deft enough to grasp the fundamentals of a good argument. You're kind of knee jerk guys. If it sounds good, and O'Reilly thinks its cool, then let's do it.

    However, people like me understand things you don't. Let me see if I can elucidate you.

    In the very first instance, you have to take reality into account. Since the proclamation of WMD's in Iraq, it's not something you have proven very adept at.

    You use the words "we know that VX gas is blah, blah, blah...." But, in the real world, we haven't demonstrated that we know, or would know, anything of the sort... Who did we get our information from? Another terrorist? Is this another slam dunk from George Tenant? The Cia? Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

    Some of these people, who we've tortured, didn't know anything... Because, in the real world, we let them go... We really did. Certainly, they didn't KNOW anything, but I'll bet we thought they did. As a matter of fact, I'll bet there were some cowboys like you, who said "we KNOW that VX gas..... blah blah blah, and YOU know where it is"

    These people were sold to the US as terrorists. We even found some of our own. We thought they were terrorists... But, in fact, we had no idea whether they were or not. But, we tortured them anyway, and we were wrong. We've let LOTS of 'em go, because we were wrong.

    So, I don't buy the basis for your phony interrogation you attribute to me... In the real world, it wouldn't happen that way. I don't believe we'd ever KNOW that some guy KNEW something worth torturing him over. It certainly wouldn't happen with our intelligence agencies.

    In your dreams and short term right wing fantasy, it might. But, not in the real world.

    excon
  • Oct 10, 2007, 10:32 AM
    ETWolverine
    Excon,

    So you, in your black-and-white reality, can't conceive of any situation in which we KNOW for a fact (due to provable intelligence... a recorded phone call with code words for times and locations, perhaps) that there is a threat and that person "xyz" knows when and how the threat will take place and we NEED to get that information? No such possibility exists because YOU say that we will "never know for 100% certain"? I don't think so.

    If you think that our intelligence community failed with regards to WMDs in Iraq (and I don't think they did, but let's assume they did), perhaps part of that failure was because we didn't torture the right guys for the right information. Perhaps if we HAD used such techniques before going into Iraq we would have more definitieve answers. Perhaps if we had used such techniques against Mohammad Atta when INS had him, 9/11 would never have occurred, and there would be no war in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else. Maybe the intelligence failure isn't in using these techniques, but rather in NOT HAVING USED THEM when we had the chance.

    So, why did we let so many guys go? Was it because we were "wrong" about them? Or was it because guys like you put so much pressure on the government that they ended up letting people go who should not have been let go? Since so many of these guys have gone back to fighting the USA in the very places they were caught the first time, it leads me to believe that we weren't wrong about them. It's just that someone in the government caved to guys like you.

    Elliot
  • Oct 10, 2007, 10:35 AM
    Dark_crow
    excon

    I agree, errors have been made but what is the alternative? Certainty is not something easily came by, in fact theories is all we have in science. 'The best theory' is all any of us can hope for. In the CIA they used to have a term and I don't know if it is still used, but the term was, “Follow the dog back.” This was something counter intelligence did when a suspect was thought to be a mole. It works pretty good but it is not fool-proof. The alternative of being certain is simply not practical or we would have thousands of moles running our government.
  • Oct 10, 2007, 03:48 PM
    inthebox
    So excon, what is the alternative to torture, and still get information in a timely manner?

    I think the right wingers have made valid cases.

    How about this; pleasure?

    First we give them meth, opiods, sex, good food, cigarettes/ nicotine , caffeine [ chocolate ] , alcohol, etc...
    Then we ask for information and if we don't get information, they get benadryl, tyelenol, celibacy, mre[s], chewing gum, and o'douls.





    Grace and Peace
  • Oct 10, 2007, 04:07 PM
    Dark_crow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by inthebox
    So excon, what is the alternative to torture, and still get infomation in a timely manner?

    I think the right wingers have made valid cases.

    How about this; pleasure?

    First we give them meth, opiods, sex, good food, cigarettes/ nicotine , caffeine [ chocolate ] , alcohol, etc...
    Then we ask for information and if we don't get information, they get benadryl, tyelenol, celibacy, mre[s], chewing gum, and o'douls.



    Grace and Peace

    Follow the link to some methods that work very well

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...k%2082-104.pdf

    Prisoner Abuse: Patterns from the Past
  • Oct 10, 2007, 04:39 PM
    CaptainRich
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by inthebox
    So excon, what is the alternative to torture, and still get infomation in a timely manner?

    I think the right wingers have made valid cases.

    How about this; pleasure?

    First we give them meth, opiods, sex, good food, cigarettes/ nicotine , caffeine [ chocolate ] , alcohol, etc...
    Then we ask for information and if we don't get information, they get benadryl, tyelenol, celibacy, mre[s], chewing gum, and o'douls.





    Grace and Peace

    Wondergirl offered a batch of cookies...

    these people don't have the same response mechanisms that we would consider to be normal..


    offer fifty million dollars and you'll get a response from the west... offer fifty camels and you'll get the sand jerks attention. It will always be a matter of value systems. I really don't mean to demean, but our values and cultures are so far apart...
  • Oct 10, 2007, 04:45 PM
    Dark_crow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by CaptainRich
    Wondergirl offered a batch of cookies...

    these people don't have the same response mechanisms that we would consider to be normal..


    offer fifty million dollars and you'll get a response from the west... offer fifty camels and you'll get the sand jerks attention. It will always be a matter of value systems. I really don't mean to demean, but our values and cultures are so far apart...

    It’s been awhile since I’ve heard anything so racist…
  • Oct 10, 2007, 05:01 PM
    CaptainRich
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dark_crow
    It’s been awhile since I’ve heard anything so racist…

    You collect a very jaundice view of society! You change your avatar from an image of Christianity to something that you wish to represent decadence! How can anyone trust where you're coming from?! You're very title... depicts your aversion from society!


    TALK TO THE HAND, DARKSTUFF! YOUR STUPIDITY IS BLOCKED!!
  • Oct 10, 2007, 06:24 PM
    Skell
    Do I have to bring up the case of David Hicks again that all you right wingers have ignored over and over when I have brought it up in the past. Numerous threads I have discussed his case on and each time you simply skim over it.

    You tortured him, got nothing and let him go on a guilty plea on charges you made up to prosecute him. The torture got nothing. As excon has pointed out this is just one of many cases.

    Elliot you twisted Excons definition to suit your own argument. And it could be seen straight through. To relate his definition of torture to your summer camp was as ridiculous a thing as I have read in this thread. Ill go with the Con and say it was a win for him!
  • Oct 10, 2007, 06:39 PM
    CaptainRich
    Win? Win for whom?

    SK, Tell us where your David was , how he got selected for a trip to GITMO, what he said or didn't say to keep him there, what "we" did or didn't do, how he left, what happened to him once he left, and what's he up to now. Please be as explicit as you are compliant...

    **edit** David Matthew Hicks (born 7 August 1975) is an Australian who, after five years detention by the United States government under suspicion of involvement with terrorism, became the first Guantánamo Bay detainee to be convicted under the US Military Commissions Act of 2006.

    A true friend of the American people...
  • Oct 10, 2007, 07:03 PM
    Skell
    Ive brought it up before when you guys try and defend your pathetic president and his men. Ive brought it up to show the incompetence of your previous attorney general and his unlawful Military Commissions Act. Ive brought it up before when you guys have preached what a wonderful and comfortable place Gitmo is for these terrorists. Ive brought it up many times and each time it has been ignored. Frankly I can't be bothered going through it all over again for you to twist and distort it like you no doubt will. Ill provide a few links below that you will tear apart and we'll agree to disagree if you decide to read them.

    He was tortured for nothing. You'll say it was for something but really know you got nothing.

    Law Council of Australia - David Hicks - Five Years Without Justice

    The David Hicks affidavit - World - www.smh.com.au

    'New evidence' backs Hicks's torture claim. 31/10/2005. ABC News Online

    You might also want to do some research on Major Michael Mori, his military attorney and the treatment he has received because he stood up for the rights of his client.

    That's all I can be bothered with right now because any discussion here just gets twisted to support your current regime.
  • Oct 10, 2007, 07:19 PM
    CaptainRich
    I've never been to GITMO.. But, neither have I been bombed out of of the Twin Towers... I guess I don't have enough perspective yet. Do you feel comfortable were you live? I'm not trying to twist anything! But based upon the links YOU'VE provided, I think I think that hick's had more to run from than to hide!

    No where, NO WHERE, in anything I've read in these links, regarding this guy, did he say he knew that he put himself in harms way and admitted he engaged with people's opposed to the US and our endeavors. You concern yourself with how many times you brought this up...

    American or un-American... Freedom wanting or not freedom wanting...

    Again, I will ask: Who's side are you on?
  • Oct 10, 2007, 07:22 PM
    BABRAM
    Personally I think David Hicks was in custody took way too long, but the guy chose to plead guilty and signed official court documents denying any abuse. Has he changed his story, yet again?



    Bobby
  • Oct 10, 2007, 09:17 PM
    Skell
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by CaptainRich
    I've never been to GITMO.. But, neither have I been bombed outta of the Twin Towers... I guess I don't have enough perspective yet. Do you feel comfortable were you live? I'm not trying to twist anything! But based upon the links YOU'VE provided, I think I think that hick's had more to run from than to hide!

    No where, NO WHERE, in anything I've read in these links, regarding this guy, did he say he knew that he put himself in harms way and admitted he engaged with people's opposed to the US and our endeavors. You concern yourself with how many times you brought this up...

    American or un-American... Freedom wanting or not freedom wanting....

    Again, I will ask: Who's side are you on?

    Your point being??
  • Oct 11, 2007, 07:12 AM
    ETWolverine
    All right, Skell, let's talk about David Hicks, shall we?

    In 1999 David Hicks traveled to first to Kosovo to train with the KLA and then to Pakistan, where he learned guerrilla warfare from Lashkar-e-Toiba, including weapons training (including landmines), kidnapping techniques, and assassination methods. Here is a picture of him during his training with the KLA. (He's the one holding the RPG.)

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...full_frame.jpg

    In 2000, he traveled to Kashmir, where he fought against India for several months.

    Later that year, Hicks attended a number of al-Qaeda training courses at various camps around Afghanistan, including an advanced course on surveillance, in which he conducted surveillance of the US and British embassies in Kabul, Afghanistan. On one occasion when al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden visited an Afghan camp, Hicks questioned bin Laden about the lack of English in training material and subsequently began to translate the training camp materials from Arabic to English.

    After the September 11, 2000 attacks, Hicks returned to Afghanistan to rejoin his al-Qaeda associates to fight against US, British, Canadian, Australian, Afghan, and other coalition forces. He was captured by a "Northern Alliance warlord" on or about 9 December2001, near Kunduz, Afghanistan, and turned over to US Special Forces for $1000 on 17 December2001.

    We're not talking about some innocent young kid who just got caught up in events. He was an active terrorist, an active operator. IF he was tortured (and we only have HIS word for that), well, you make your bed, you lay in it. He chose to become a terrorist. Afghanistan wasn't an isolated case... he was a terrorist in Kosovo, India, and Pakistan before going to Afghanistan.

    So, cry me a river over the torture and long confinement of David Hicks. The guy's a f#*&ingterrorist scumbag. He had no problems with torture, murder, assassination, attacking civillians etc. He trained for it. He CHOSE to learn and then use those methods of combat. You reap what you sow. He chose terrorism. I've got NO sympathy for the guy. If it were up to me, he'd still be at Gitmo, with his testicles wrapped in copper wire with the leads attached to a car battery. And when I was finished with him, his corpse would be put in an unmarked grave, and he'd be buried with the carcass of a pig.

    My question to you, Skell, is why you have any sympathy at all fo a murdering terrorist scumbag like David Hicks. So he spent five years in Gitmo in a small room. Boo effing hoo. It's a hell of a lot better than what he had planned for his victims.

    Quote:

    "He [Hicks] once told me in Afghanistan that if he were to go into a building of Jews with an automatic weapon or as a suicide bomber he would have to say something like 'there is no god but Allah' ect [sic] just so he could see the look of fear on their faces, before he takes them out," writes former Camp X-ray inmate Abbasi.

    Detainment and torture of a terrorist? Boo hoo. I don't give a crap. He did and wanted to do a lot worse than that to innocent people. Hicks was anything but an innocent victim.

    Elliot
  • Oct 11, 2007, 07:35 AM
    excon
    Hello again, El:

    I would have written this myself, but your home town paper beat me to it…… So, I borrowed.

    How about another victim? Khaled el-Masri, an innocent German citizen of Lebanese descent who was kidnapped, detained and tortured in a secret overseas prison as part of the Bush administration's morally, physically and illegal anti-terrorism program.

    Mr. Masri says he was picked up while vacationing in Macedonia in late 2003 and flown to a squalid prison in Afghanistan. He says he was questioned there about ties to terrorist groups and was beaten by his captors, some of whom were Americans. At the end of May 2004, Mr. Masri was released in a remote part of Albania without having been charged with a crime.

    Investigations in Europe and news reports in this country have supported his version of events, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged privately to her that Mr. Masri's abduction was a mistake, an admission that aides to Ms. Rice have denied. The Masri case, in other words, is being actively discussed all over the world. The only place it cannot be discussed, it seems, is in a United States courtroom.

    In refusing to consider Mr. Masri's appeal, the Supreme Court has left an innocent person without any remedy for his wrongful imprisonment and torture. It has damaged America's standing in the world and established the nation as Supreme Enabler of the Bush administration's efforts to avoid accountability for its actions. These are not accomplishments to be proud of.

    excon
  • Oct 11, 2007, 07:40 AM
    kindj
    [QUOTE=ETWolverine]

    My question to you...is why you have any sympathy at all fo a murdering terrorist scumbag like David Hicks. QUOTE]

    Because that is the disease of the self-proclaimed "enlightened" crowd that's running around today. Sympathy for the criminal, disdain for the victims.

    Look, why do we even have the penal code? Is it because everyone lives with everyone else in peace and harmony? No. The criminals dictate the laws these days. Our laws and what we laughingly call the judicial system are totally REACTIVE in nature instead of PROACTIVE, as is the whole mindset of the rule makers.

    Someone shoots up a school, so they make laws banning guns within X number of meters of a school. Well, if that ain't just pure genius! Have they looked up the definition of a criminal? If so, have they paused to think about just how much of a rip a criminal gives about their little law?

    REACTION investigates and once in a while prevents the same person from doing the same thing twice.

    PROACTION looks for the source of the crime before it happens and seeks to prevent it from ever occurring in the first place. This does happen, but because of the very nature of proaction, most people never know it happens, never know how close they may have come to being snuffed out by someone who cares less about their lives than they do about stepping on a bug.

    So how do we be proactive? We use our assets: intelligence, prior histories, informants, and yes, all the various means of interrogation. We get information, and we ACT on it.

    Hopefully that made some degree of sense. I have a lousy cold or something, and my head's all full of crud.
  • Oct 11, 2007, 08:01 AM
    tomder55
    EXCON
    You missed the point of the Masri case . He was suing for compensation. SCOTUS could not let the precedent of every jihadi who thinks he has a claim bringing a tort case to the courts. Masri got screwed by the CIA and the $75K he asked for is fair .But SCOTUS is correct .They can't give jurisdiction to anyone around the world for lawsuits in American courts for actions outside the US, especially against agents that are defending our national security. The correct venue for this is in the State Dept. They should work out a deal.
  • Oct 11, 2007, 08:21 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55
    You missed the point of the Masri case . He was suing for compensation.

    Hello again, tom:

    Oh, I didn't miss anything. I think, perhaps, it's you who missed my point. But, let's address yours first. Do I think he should be compensated for the torture he endured having been INNOCENT and WRONGLY arrested?? Uhhhh, yeah!!

    However, my point was that we scoop innocent people up and call them terrorists, without knowing a thing about them - and then we torture them.

    My overall point, however, is that based upon nothing more than gossip, rumor and innuendo, we arrest people. I'm not suggesting that ALL the terrorists we've arrested are innocent. I'm suggesting that SOME are, as evidenced by the facts in this case.

    Given the above, and taking the cowboy Wolverine's example again, it's a fantasy to believe that we would EVER KNOW that somebody KNEW something that we wanted to know. It's just not a possibility that I would entertain. Therefore, in my view, it's better to NOT torture hundreds of terrorists who know things, than to wrongly torture an innocent man who knows nothing.

    excon
  • Oct 11, 2007, 08:44 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    My overall point being, that based upon gossip, rumor and innuendo, we arrest people.
    Actually it was a case of mistaken identity . Macedonia identified him . SCOTUS decided without dissent that the State secrets doctrine trumped his claim and that he had no standing in a US Court. . Masri should sue Macedonia .
  • Oct 11, 2007, 09:00 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Therefore, in my view, it's better to NOT torture hundreds of terrorists who know things, than to wrongly torture an innocent man who knows nothing.
    Then it's a good thing that you are not a member of the intelligence community or in any way charged with the protection of this country. You would simply be the wrong person for that job. I don't know that I would be the right guy for that job, but your reticense to do whatever it takes to do that job would make you a VERY bad choice.

    I'm glad that there are those who ARE willing to do whatever it takes.

    To paraphrase a statement I once heard on this subject, "G-d forbid if everyone was willing to do whatever it takes to obtain information in the war on terror, and G-d forbid if NOONE was willing to whatever it takes to otain information in the war on terror."

    There's a line from one of my favorite movies that sort of puts your position in perspective. The movie is Heartbreak Ridge, (Clint Eastwood, Warner Bros. 1986).

    "Characters like you are an anachronism. You should be sealed in a case that says break glass only in the event of war."

    I get that. People who really are willing to do ANYTHING to accomplish the mission, no matter how nasty, don't make for good houseguests.

    But the war is already here. Time to break the glass and let the nasty guys out of the box to do their jobs.

    Kipling also wrote about it in his poem Tommy.

    I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o'beer,
    The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
    The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
    I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:

    O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
    But it's ``Thank you, Mister Atkins,'' when the band begins to play,
    The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
    O it's ``Thank you, Mr. Atkins,'' when the band begins to play.
    I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
    They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
    They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
    But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!

    For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
    But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
    The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
    O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.
    Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
    Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
    An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
    Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

    Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy how's yer soul?"
    But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
    The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
    O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.
    We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
    But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
    An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints:
    Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;

    While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind,"
    But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind,
    There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
    O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.
    You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires an' all:
    We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
    Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
    The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.

    For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
    But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
    An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
    But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!
    People don't like the guys who do nasty stuff to protect them. Killing, torturing, blowing stuff up... it's all very nasty and not the type of thing you want to deal with in polite company. "Real Americans" don't do that stuff. We're better than that. And anyone who is willing to do that stuff is a bad person. But when the planes start crashing into buildings, we demand that the nasty guys in uniform Do Something About It. And when they do something about it, they get reamed out for being too nasty. Personally, I'd rather just say "thank you" and let them get on with their jobs.

    Elliot
  • Oct 11, 2007, 09:05 AM
    Dark_crow
    excon

    I simply can't agree that it is the policy of our government to 'scoop up people without knowing anything about them and torture them. Mistakes may be made, but as I've asked you before…what is the alternative and you have not replied?

    There are of course individuals who do not adhere to policies, that is, individuals who believe American values and traditions are so superior to especially mid-eastern values and traditions that people from that heratige have no rights at all. In fact a couple of our board meambers are of that inclination. It's a pity but we can't judge all Americans by that standard, nor should we judge mid-eastern by the standard of terrorist.
    .
  • Oct 11, 2007, 09:13 AM
    Wondergirl
    Isn't that how Gitmo got populated, by "scooping" whoever looked Middle Eastern and was in the wrong place at the wrong time?

    From Wikipedia: War in Afghanistan (2001–present) 775 detainees who have been brought to Guantanamo, approximately 420 have been released. (Why?) As of August 09, 2007, approximately 355 detainees remained at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. More than a fifth have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or years for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to line up places to send them, according to Bush administration officials and defense lawyers. (They can't go home?) Of the roughly 355 still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest. (Why the delay for freeing the rest?)

    So most of the detainees were illegally/incorrectly/unfairly incarcerated because they had been "scooped"?

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:42 AM.