U.S. OKs Evidence Gained Through Torture

[auxilary]

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041203/D86O81GG2.html

[Forrest]

Gee. I guess it's ok as long as they only do it to "terrorists."

[Hugh]

some U.S. soldiers there had been disciplined for misconduct, including a female interrogator who removed her blouse during questioning.

 

There's a good media twist on a story. "Removed her blouse"

 

Do you know what that means to military people? That she was still wearing a bra and a green/brown/or black undershirt under that "blouse" which is what we call the camoflage shirt.

 

Gotta love the media twist...

[RB26powered74zcar]

without opening the link, and going by your subject header.... GREAT!! Good news as far as I'm concerned!!

 

Now I'll open the link....

[Guest rick458]

A lady taking her shirt off is Torture?

[johnc]

Amazing how AP spins the story (which originated in the NYT). The word "torture" is used throughout the article as if every agrees that torture was used in Gitmo on the detainees. The only effort to back up this default assumption is this statement below:

 

The New York Times reported the Red Cross described the psychological and physical coercion used at Guantanamo as "tantamount to torture."

 

But, I did a search of the American Red Cross web site and news releases and couldn't find what their definition of "torture" is. But I did come across this: (http://www.redcross.org/services/intl/0,1082,0_448_,00.html#protect)

 

Although September 11 brought death and destruction on a scale we associate with warfare, it is not clear that IHL applies. IHL applies to armed conflict between states (international armed conflict) or to internal armed conflicts such as civil wars. If the shocking attacks on civilian targets in New York and Washington were committed by a terrorist network operating on its own, then they amount to horrendous crimes rather than acts of war to which IHL would apply.

 

FYI... IHL stand for International Humanitarian Law which the Red Cross defines as the Geneva Conventions (1949) and the Additional Protocols (1977).

 

So, again, we have an example of a news article from AP that makes a basic assertion in its headline and in the text that is unsupported by facts. The American Red Cross has not said that the detainees at Gitmo have been tortured in any way, at least from the web site.

 

Now, the International Red Cross is whole 'nuther story. They've been accusing the US of torturing the detainees since we set foot in Afghanistan in December 2001.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200412020949.asp:

 

Which brings us to the latest report. It follows on several similar products over the last two years and features the usual criticism of the administration's Guantanamo policies, only taken up a notch. The ICRC's positions are not rooted in either law or sound policy. Consider two key criticisms in the report.

 

The first is the argument that the indeterminate length of detention to which Guantanamo-held al Qaeda and Taliban personnel are being subjected has been causing them such psychological and mental anguish that it qualifies as a form of torture. It is understandable that Guantanamo detainees would be unhappy about having been caught. But the notion that captured enemy fighters, both POWs and unlawful combatants, can be held for the entire duration of hostilities is at the very foundation of the modern laws of war — regardless of its effect on their psyche. Indeed, the right to detain captured combatants in this fashion arose at the same time — in the 1500s — that the obligation to accord them "quarter" emerged as the most important humanitarian breakthrough. Prior to that, most captured enemy fighters were put to the sword, while the few wealthy noblemen were held for ransom.

 

As we know only too well from history — backed up by the experience of the last year — captured enemy fighters who are prematurely released return to the fight. This prolongs the war on terror and causes unnecessary additional civilian and combat casualties. The ICRC seems not to care.

 

The second ICRC criticism is that the use of any psychologically coercive methods of interrogation at Guantanamo — designed to elicit intelligence information from captured al Qaeda and Taliban personnel — is also a form of torture. This view is not based upon any sound construction of the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, or any other applicable international treaty or convention. Unlike POWs, unlawful combatants can and should be aggressively interrogated, and are entitled only to humane treatment. As any aficionado of detective novels or TV series knows, the good-cop-bad-cop routine and psychological pressure permeate the questioning of even criminal suspects and passes muster under the world's most liberal constitutions. To accord more protections and sensitive treatment than this to unlawful combatants is foolish on its face.

[tannji]

Surely even the most liberal have to realize that journalism is a business, based far more upon selling content than merely exposing the truth?

[JKDGabe]

A lady taking her shirt off is Torture?

 

You haven't seen very many women in uniform have you?

[JKDGabe]

Excellent point Gabe!

 

You should know!

 

They are capturing and beheading our people, and we should do the same...

 

I do hope you're not serious. Public execution I don't really have a problem with but if we're gonna claim to be different then let's act differently.

[tannji]

It would be different... they have to hide their executions.

The only thing that will work is targeting leadership, for a long time. They have unlimited resources when it comes to recruiting... but finite leaders. This is where proper funding, training, and use of the intelligence services comes into play. Problem is, we need indigent agents.... difficult to obtain in that neck of the woods.... but not impossible. Congress needs to realize this, and the heads of Intelligence even more so. I dont look to see significant change any time soon tho....

[blueovalz]

Surely even the most liberal have to realize that journalism is a business, based far more upon selling content than merely exposing the truth?

 

And anybody with even a semi-balance perspective knows that the media, in its grab for viewers, will slant it in which ever direction they feel their viewership slants, left or RIGHT.

[tannji]

Absolutely.... but the majority of viewers watch media with a liberal tendency. And my semi-balanced perspective doesnt favor Fox over CNN, lol. To tell the truth, I watched fox more during the initial assault of the war... not much at all since.... I find them to be just as sensationalist (if not more) as the other outlets. Does it make sense that sometimes having information tilted towards the stance someone thinks you want is more offensive than having to filter the other leanings? Shrug. I was a journalism major... learned enough to never have joined the field.

[zolorin]

About time to stop treating terorists as human beings because once they have targeted Noncombatants as a tool to win the war they have lost their humanity.

[JKDGabe]

I honestly don't care about their lifes, their human rights, or the fact that they are human beings.. Because they aren't.

 

That's what they think about us. If we follow that to it's logical conclusion we should wipe out every man, woman and child. If we don't they'll grow up someday and come back to haunt us... Of course, if we do that it'll just be 2 groups of terrorists fighting each other for supremacy.

 

Remember Sherman's march? As a southerner I've studied it and I also remember that General Lee put one of his own soldiers to death for stealing part of a fence for firewood. When it came to the war the south had moral supremacy, the north won but lost their souls in the process. If the law doesn't apply to everyone it doesn't mean anything. JMHO

[katman]

When it came to the war the south had moral supremacy, the north won but lost their souls in the process.

 

pffffssht. Wasn't the South the ones with the slaves?

 

I'm with Mike. And no, you don't have to exterminate every man, women, and child, you just have to knock back the terrorism long enough for freedom to take hold. Then the brainwashing of the younger generation will stop and the whole radical Islamic movement will collapse.

 

Somebody in your neighborhood wants to kill you. It's his core belief. You gonna wait until he sends his son over to play with a bomb strapped to his waist?

 

I'm bringin' my guns over to Mike's and my son over to do the reloading.

[Zhadman]

... We could pull out tomorrow and they would STILL try to kill us... We're Americans and they hate us for our lifestyles and our freedoms. So they can all rot in hell and I'd be happy to pull a trigger personally on ANYONE who chooses to attack us and our freedoms.

 

True, true. Even BEFORE 9/11. We were getting intel briefs back in 1996 (and probably before) screaming about Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. He was as familiar to us as any Mig 25 or SA-7. They actually caught Al Qaeda operatives who had infiltrated PSAB (Prince Sultan Air Base) disquised as TCN's (Third Country Nationals). In their pockets were detailed layouts of our flightline and barracks. Anywho...

 

Where was the IRC when they were lopping peoples heads off on camera? Torture/mutilation/excecutions are a regular occurance in some middle eastern countries... why are they now attacking the way we deal with illegal combatants? They (illegal combatants) are not protected in the LOAC, let alone by the Geneva convention.

 

Now, as it stands in Iraq, they kill far more of thier own people than they do ours. I highly doubth this would change if we left.

[Guest 77vegasz]

Somewhere in our recent politically correct past, people have forgotten what a war is. These people are the enemy, they are prisoners of war, not US citizens entitled to due process under our laws. The only law protecting them is the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

 

When the hell did we start spending our money having trials for each and every detainee captured during awar? That is crazy. These people will kill you, your family or any other person that they see as an infiedel, so why are we concerned at all with their rights? Once on the loose again, they will be back trying to kill inocent people and create their brand of couardly terror.

 

As said before, "Kill them all, let Allah sort them out"

 

Jon

[JMortensen]

Gabe, you ever read about Andersonville when you studied up on the Civil War? And the South was fighting to subjugate an entire race... moral supremacy... I guess I don't want any of that if that's what its called.

 

Back to the subject of the thread I think John Coffey nailed it. It's not really torture, it's just another way for the rest of the world to demonize the US and our foreign policy.

 

You want to talk torture, how about what Russia, Germany, France, and some of our own US oil companies were doing to the Iraqi people with the Oil for Food crap. There's your torture.

[2126]

Amen to that you said Mike....a true patriotic American. Hell, you should have been President!

[JKDGabe]

Wasn't the South the ones with the slaves?

 

First off, slave owners were a very small minority. I have studied it (far more than what public school piecemeals out) and the war was not about slavery. It was a handy slogan. "free the slaves!" General Grant didn't free his slaves even after the war was over, why? "Good help is hard to find." Yes, he actually said that.

 

Second, how do you think they got them? The north had the shipping industry and brought them from africa and sold them to the south. I'm not defending slavery, nor am I saying there were no crimes committed by southerners. But overall I do believe the south was morally superior. And to be morally superior you shouldn't sink to the level of your opponent.

 

Somebody in your neighborhood wants to kill you. It's his core belief. You gonna wait until he sends his son over to play with a bomb strapped to his waist?

 

Nope. I'm gonna put a bullet in his head. "3 in the head, you know they're dead." But I'm NOT going to stoop to his tactics. I don't know what's really going on over there as I'm over here... I just don't want it to happen.