America is at war
 

"Capt.Mooron" wrote
If we thot he knew something he be at Gitmo.

No you couldn't.... he was not "captured" nor was he on any "list".

Hadn't thot of that ...

..... tortured for information he did not have.... all at the request of
your
government and their paranoid state of operation.

Obviously, this administration is the worst in our history. Worse than LBJ
and Nixon combined and "paranoid" is an apt description. Stupid men get that
way when faced with what to them are insoluable problems of their own
making - especially when everything they do makes things worse. "It must be
somebody is out to get me .."

All I can say is that most Americans did not vote for it, except by lack of
action. Yes, we are in deep trouble.


....... Do you even notice your rights and
freedoms being erroded? Is it because they are only taking small pieces of
it away at a time?

Sure, but we can only choose between the two parties, and they differ only
in what rights each wants to eliminate first. Iran's government is much
like your own - except that there is a supreme court that can negate (veto)
any at passed by the legislature and that court is comprised of radical
Muslims. When Bush's latest appointment is confirmed the majority of our
own court will be Roman Catholics - for decades to come.

I'm sorry these things are happening.

America is at war
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote
Except that you *have* done it and there's no reason to think you've
stopped doing it. Your personal refusal to believe it is irrelevant.

There is good reason to think we stopped it long ago. Witness our response
to the Abu Grabbe (sp?) scandal. It is NOT our policy to physically torture
prisoners. It happens but is generally punished.

The Auzzi held at Gitmo is not being physically tortured. He was
captured in
Afganistan by Afghans whilst fighting for al Qaeda and the Taliban,
having
left his family in Oz unsupported and gone there to support a gang who
killed women for being literate and no, I do not pity him. Why do you?
He
gve up his rights as an Australian when HE eagerly adopted the radical
Muslim system.

No, he didn't give up his rights as an Australian. In fact he's not
committed any crime under then existing Australian law. We have
freedom of religion in Australia so his being a Muslim is irrelevant to
what he does, legally. When did the USA outlaw Islam?

He is NOT being held over religion. He went to another country where he
helped impose the customs of a particularly radical sect upon people who
didn't want it. Afghans are Muslims like Aussies are Christians. They don't
believe in murdering women for being literate any more than you do. Yet that
is exactly what the Taliban did. And when Afghans rose to oppose the
Taliban, this man fought for the Taliban without benefit of uniform - a
capital crime under international law. The US Constitution forbids our
government to prohibit the free exercise of religion, but that does not
allow us to murder "infidels", overseas or otherwise. I'd be surprised if
yours does.

Now he has been tried under that system and given to us for
deprogramming in liu of execution. Would you rather he'd been beheaded?

If he was caught on the field of battle, shooting at people, out of
uniform, he could have been shot or summarily executed and I wouldn't
care at all. Once you bring him into the system, that's different. I've
come to the conclusion that you're never going to see this.

No, I dont 'see' that he must either be killed immediately or granted the
same rights as a soldier. I think that we can infict a lesser punishment or
hold him for a time before doing so. In my own personal opinion the man is
insane and might be cured by "deprogramming" and that this is better than
executing him.

There are US Citizens in foreign jails a we speak - perhaps some in Oz.
They are there because they broke the laws of their host country and were
tried and convicted according to that countries customs - customs very
unlike our own. IMHO, the same applies here. The man in question left Oz to
engage in a civil war in a Muslim country. He was captured in battle without
uniform, tried and convicted IAW Afghan custom. He could have been beheaded
but instead he is being held at Gitmo where, perhaps, he will come to his
senses.

The fellow Capt. M. mentions apparently held dual Canadian/Syrian
citizenship, the latter by birth. .....

You've got nowhere to go in that one Vito, except denial. It happened.
It was illegal. It isn't the only case. Nobody is safe transitting a US
airport if your Govt thinks they know something.

Obviously it happened. Would it have been legal to deport him to Canada? If
"YES" then the only question is "why Syria instead of Canada?" There are
two possible answers - either somebody had a hard on for this person or
somebody bungled. He was, after all a Syrian citizen too so I'd rather think
the latter ... that somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot.

And no - Nobody is safe in a US airport - period! I won't go near one and I
advise you to do the same. At best you will be treated like a criminal,
possibly detained til you miss your flight and even strip searched. At worst
you too could end up in Syria.

People like you are pushing people like me away. I'm a right wing gun
nut by Australian standards. What do you think the long term
consequences of this sort of bull**** is going to be? ....

A set of principles, largely inherited, made the USA the greatest nation
ever seen. That our leaders and some of our people have abandoned those
principles, to our detriment, does not mean that you should abandon them as
well, especially to accomodate China. Someday somebody will take our place
just as we surpassed England. I hope that it will be Canada or Oz or some
combo of them - someone sharing the principle that government derives power
from the consent of the governed vs the national socialist principles we
seem headed toward.

Where is your space program?

America is at war
 

Vito wrote:
There is good reason to think we stopped it long ago.

Stopped what, handing over prisoners for turture by other countries, or
torturing them ourselves?

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons to think either has stopped.

... Witness our response
to the Abu Grabbe (sp?) scandal. It is NOT our policy to physically torture
prisoners. It happens but is generally punished.


Then why were those who set the policy not punished?

The Abu Ghraib (or however you wanna spell it) scandal is just the tip
of the iceberg. Mistreatment of prisoners is on the rise in the U.S., by
the military and by police. It is partially due to the eroding of
professional & moral standards, and it's also directly due to corrosive
& amoral leadership.

For example, Sec'y of Defense Donald Rumsfeld issued a series of
memoes... at least one of which has been tracked directly back to him...
stating that he wanted to replace the U.S. policy of treating prisoners
scrupulously within boundaries, to "pushing the envelope" and treating
prisoners in ways that may be open to interpretation.

In other words, he issued orders for the troops to become bad guys who
torture prisoners. And then he puts them on trial.

Nice.

DSK

America is at war
 

DSK wrote:

Vito wrote:
There is good reason to think we stopped it long ago.

Stopped what, handing over prisoners for turture by other countries, or
torturing them ourselves?

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons to think either has stopped.

... Witness our response
to the Abu Grabbe (sp?) scandal. It is NOT our policy to physically torture
prisoners. It happens but is generally punished.


Then why were those who set the policy not punished?

The Abu Ghraib (or however you wanna spell it) scandal is just the tip
of the iceberg. Mistreatment of prisoners is on the rise in the U.S., by
the military and by police.

Have you read or heard of some of the work done by Manfred Nowak,
recently appointed UN Special Rapporteur on Torture? He thinks the US
may now be operating "Prison Ships", or "Interrogation Ships" away from
prying eyes of the Red Cross and his own International Commission of
Jurists.

The latest crap with "Scooter" reminds me of the Abu Ghraib folly,
punish the little guy but not the Machiavellian brains behind the
operation. Who was the boy wonder in the CIA that decided that Dick
Cheney had the need to know the names of any covert operatives? Why did
Dick then decide that his Chief of Staff needed this name?

Cheers
Martin

America is at war
 

Martin Baxter wrote:
Have you read or heard of some of the work done by Manfred Nowak,
recently appointed UN Special Rapporteur on Torture? He thinks the US
may now be operating "Prison Ships", or "Interrogation Ships" away from
prying eyes of the Red Cross and his own International Commission of
Jurists.


Hmm, it's possible. A little far fetched maybe.

It sort of fits in with Rumsfeld's private "intelligence" agency which
is actually his personal special-forces arm. He's diverted a lot of
money into building this up and much of the abuse of prisoners by "OGA"
guys (military lingo for 'other gov't agency') is documented; plus they
do a lot of the capturing of terrorist suspects. A better term is
probably 'kidnapping.'


The latest crap with "Scooter" reminds me of the Abu Ghraib folly,
punish the little guy but not the Machiavellian brains behind the
operation. Who was the boy wonder in the CIA that decided that Dick
Cheney had the need to know the names of any covert operatives? Why did
Dick then decide that his Chief of Staff needed this name?


Hush, you'll get us all sent off to Gitmo. Or worse. I'm clamping my
hands over my ears and humming 'God Bless America.'

DSK

America is at war
 

"DSK" wrote
Vito wrote:
There is good reason to think we stopped it long ago.

Stopped what, handing over prisoners for turture by other countries, or
torturing them ourselves?

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons to think either has stopped.

I don't think we ever handed anyone over for the *purpose* of having them
tortured. In the case mentioned I thing some INS idiot looked at his
citizenship and saw "Syria/Canada" and said "Doh, send him to Syria".

I can't say that beatings have entirely stopped - that no young Marine will
ever knock the crap out of a prisoner who insults him - but it is not our
policy or even common place. See below:

... Witness our response
to the Abu Grabbe (sp?) scandal. It is NOT our policy to physically
torture
prisoners. It happens but is generally punished.


Then why were those who set the policy not punished?

What policy? The worst I've heard is that Rummy said "I stand at my desk
12-16 hours/day. It is not torture to have a prisoner do likewise." I tend
to agree. To me "torture" inflicts real pain but remember I think setting
one's ass on fire is a great joke.

The Abu Ghraib (or however you wanna spell it) scandal is just the tip
of the iceberg. Mistreatment of prisoners is on the rise in the U.S., by
the military and by police. It is partially due to the eroding of
professional & moral standards, and it's also directly due to corrosive
& amoral leadership.

I'm not sure it is any worse or simple better reported. If anything, I
suspect that true torture - inflicting pain - is less common in intel
circles because it seldom yields truth. Police are a different story. They
want confessions not truth. OTOH I agree on the causes you cite.

For example, Sec'y of Defense Donald Rumsfeld issued a series of
memoes... at least one of which has been tracked directly back to him...
stating that he wanted to replace the U.S. policy of treating prisoners
scrupulously within boundaries, to "pushing the envelope" and treating
prisoners in ways that may be open to interpretation.

In other words, he issued orders for the troops to become bad guys who
torture prisoners. And then he puts them on trial.

Nice.

Sad, but completely normal for politicians.

America is at war
 

"Martin Baxter" wrote
The latest crap with "Scooter" reminds me of the Abu Ghraib folly,
punish the little guy but not the Machiavellian brains behind the
operation. Who was the boy wonder in the CIA that decided that Dick
Cheney had the need to know the names of any covert operatives? Why did
Dick then decide that his Chief of Staff needed this name?

It would be a mistake to lable Libby one of the "little guys". He is a
novelist, obviously quite adept at making fiction seem plausible. Think of
him as the Jo. Gobbles of the Bush Administration, the man who ran the
propaganda campaign that got us into the Iraq war. He did this by
publishing unfounded and unproven intel reports attributed to CIA which
later proved false (Like Abu Atta meeting with Iraqi intel to plan 9/11).
One was that Saddam was trying to aquire radioactive materials from Africa.
It didn't matter when CIA checked it out and found it false too - what
mattered was that the agent "leaked" the truth to the press damaging
Scooter's propaganda campaign. So he outed the guys wife to punish them.

America is at war
 

"Vito" wrote in message

I don't think we ever handed anyone over for the *purpose* of having them
tortured. In the case mentioned I thing some INS idiot looked at his
citizenship and saw "Syria/Canada" and said "Doh, send him to Syria".

Yes... your country certainly _did_ hand him over on purpose...... and No!
it didn't come form a subordinate... and like I already pointed out ...
from the hearings it's been the USA standard operating procedure since
implementation of the office of Homeland Security.

CM

America is at war
 

There is good reason to think we stopped it long ago.

Stopped what, handing over prisoners for turture by other countries, or
torturing them ourselves?

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons to think either has stopped.


Vito wrote:
I don't think we ever handed anyone over for the *purpose* of having them
tortured.

It's not proven AFAIK, but then in a number of cases it sure looks that
way. Like the guy we just got back from the Saudis, who confessed while
being tortured and now that confession is the primary evidence against
him in a U.S. court.

But hey, at least he's getting a day in court. Lots of other folks are
just locked up for who knows how long.



I can't say that beatings have entirely stopped - that no young Marine will
ever knock the crap out of a prisoner who insults him

Actually, on the radio a few days back they had one of the Abu Ghraib
guards who was involved in a case of a prisoner who was fatally
beaten... and the one who did the beating was an "OGA guy." That
happened Afghanistan too.


Then why were those who set the policy not punished?


What policy? The worst I've heard is that Rummy said "I stand at my desk
12-16 hours/day. It is not torture to have a prisoner do likewise." I tend
to agree. To me "torture" inflicts real pain but remember I think setting
one's ass on fire is a great joke.

The Abu Ghraib (or however you wanna spell it) scandal is just the tip
of the iceberg. Mistreatment of prisoners is on the rise in the U.S., by
the military and by police. It is partially due to the eroding of
professional & moral standards, and it's also directly due to corrosive
& amoral leadership.


I'm not sure it is any worse or simple better reported. If anything, I
suspect that true torture - inflicting pain - is less common in intel
circles because it seldom yields truth. Police are a different story. They
want confessions not truth. OTOH I agree on the causes you cite.

Well, why is the whole Bush Administration insisting on torturing
prisoners as a method of fighting the "War On Terror?"



For example, Sec'y of Defense Donald Rumsfeld issued a series of
memoes... at least one of which has been tracked directly back to him...
stating that he wanted to replace the U.S. policy of treating prisoners
scrupulously within boundaries, to "pushing the envelope" and treating
prisoners in ways that may be open to interpretation.

In other words, he issued orders for the troops to become bad guys who
torture prisoners. And then he puts them on trial.

Nice.


Sad, but completely normal for politicians.


And you still think it's "just a few bad apples" and "it's not really
torture"? You seem to have a curious double-sided attitude, admitting
that torture is bad and also not likely to produce desired results; and
also that the Bush Administration has set this policy from the highest
levels... and you're totally willing to deny that it really happens or
that anybody other than the poor grunt offered up for sacrifice ought to
be punished. I wonder if this is how 51.5% of the voters last year felt?

DSK

America is at war
 

In article ,
Vito wrote:
"DSK" wrote
Vito wrote:
There is good reason to think we stopped it long ago.

Stopped what, handing over prisoners for turture by other countries, or
torturing them ourselves?

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons to think either has stopped.

I don't think we ever handed anyone over for the *purpose* of having them
tortured. In the case mentioned I thing some INS idiot looked at his
citizenship and saw "Syria/Canada" and said "Doh, send him to Syria".

Unfortunately, we did. We've been doing this for years, and prior to
Bushco. We'd send them to Egypt for example, knowing full well that
they used "more aggressive" techniques to get information. Sad really.

What policy? The worst I've heard is that Rummy said "I stand at my desk
12-16 hours/day. It is not torture to have a prisoner do likewise." I tend
to agree. To me "torture" inflicts real pain but remember I think setting
one's ass on fire is a great joke.

It's a bit worse than that. They will force someone to neither stand
nor sit for hours at a time... somewhere in between. This can be
extremely painful.

I'm not sure it is any worse or simple better reported. If anything, I
suspect that true torture - inflicting pain - is less common in intel
circles because it seldom yields truth. Police are a different story. They
want confessions not truth. OTOH I agree on the causes you cite.

It generally gives you nothing useful, as the prisoner will say
anything to stop the pain. The point is that people are fallible and
they resort to things that don't really work to satisfy those higher
in rank or authority.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

America is at war
 

"Capt.Mooron" wrote
Yes... your country certainly _did_ hand him over on purpose...... and
No!
it didn't come form a subordinate... and like I already pointed out ...
from the hearings it's been the USA standard operating procedure since
implementation of the office of Homeland Security.

Why would we do that?

America is at war
 

"DSK" wrote
And you still think it's "just a few bad apples" and "it's not really
torture"?

I believe it is a combo of the two.

I used to train horses. I got excellent results by *never* hurting the horse
but instead simply convincing it that sooner or later it wound have to do my
bidding. This is a tried and proven technique. Takes more time but the
results - a horse eager to obey -are well worth it. If I got a particular
hard case I would never, ever hurt it. I'd just trip it to the ground and
tie it there, set on it and pet it, offer treats and water, sometimes for
hours until it finally understood that I had complete control and gave up.
Was that torture? Some might think so but the alternative was the glue
factory.

There in no doubt that some soft heads call the techniques that are
routinely and systematically used by pro interrogators "torture", but I do
not. We are dealing with very dangerous and committed people here, people
who will *eagerly* kill themselves in order to kill an enemies women and
children. I see nothing wrong with depriving them of sleep, insulting the
religion that drives them to these outrages, and otherwise offending and
degrading them until, like a bad horse, they begin to doubt first themselves
then their conditioning and finally realise their captors are in control.
OTOH, I disapprove of inflicting pain if only because doing so usually
strengthens the victims resistance instead of reducing it. He may tell you
what you want to hear to stop the pain but will not change his beliefs so
whatever info he provides is likely to lead you astray - intentionally. I
think our interrogators are as good at breaking men as I was at breaking
horses. If a prisoner tries to hurt them they may react and smak him like I
might a horse that bit me but it is a mistake to do so - to admit he is
capable of hurting or even angering you - soo it would not be "policy".
Quite the opposite.

Second, we all know there are sadists who enjoy hurting others and that many
find their way into the military. I don't doubt they have hurt some
prisoners. However their actions are *not* US policy - as witness the tiny
percent of prisoners who are truly abused. A few dozen, even a few 100 out
of the tens of thousands captured shows that it is not commonplace. And,
when proven, the miscreants are punished.

admitting ...that the Bush Administration has set this policy from the
highest
levels...

On the contrary. I have yet to see evidence that Bush, Chaney, Rummy, et
al, ever made it US policy to inflict physical pain or torture (ie break
anybodys legs) on anybody. Degrade, frighten, discomfit and discourage them,
sure, but torture, no. Rummy says 'I stand 10 hours/day so I don't think it
torture to make a prisoner do the same' and all the softheads say he
condoned torture. Jeeze, there's plenty of real things to blame him for,
like not giving the generals enough men to prevent looting after defeating
Saddam. It's like the Neocoms have fixated on Clinton's BJ.

You should know that I am no supporter of theirs. I believe this whole Iraq
war was the biggest blunder in US history and that we were suckered into it
by lies and propaganda just like we were suckered into Vietnam. I could
believe *almost* anything bad said about them - anything except that Bush
ever got a BJ g.

But I not believe that CIA or other professionals routinly inflict pain on
prisoners, or send them to other countries to be tortured, if for no greater
reason than that it is unproductive to do so - the equivelent of a pro
trainer beating a horse. Police and other LEOs are a different matter. If
they can beat a confession out of you they can declare a crime solved and
get a gold star by their name. But if an intel officer is told that his
victim's gang is camped at XXX by beating the guy, then our patrol gets
ambushed on the way there, his career is likely to "suffer" ... perhaps in
the form of a fragging. So ....

America is at war
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote,
Vito wrote:
I don't think we ever handed anyone over for the *purpose* of having them
tortured.

Unfortunately, we did. We've been doing this for years, and prior to
Bushco. We'd send them to Egypt for example, knowing full well that
they used "more aggressive" techniques to get information. Sad really.

Sending somebody somewhere knowing they will be tortured is quite different
than sending them there to be tortured.

What policy? The worst I've heard is that Rummy said "I stand at my desk
12-16 hours/day. It is not torture to have a prisoner do likewise." I
tend
to agree. To me "torture" inflicts real pain but remember I think setting
one's ass on fire is a great joke.

It's a bit worse than that. They will force someone to neither stand
nor sit for hours at a time... somewhere in between. This can be
extremely painful.

Cite?

I'm not sure it is any worse or simple better reported. If anything, I
suspect that true torture - inflicting pain - is less common in intel
circles because it seldom yields truth. Police are a different story.
They
want confessions not truth. OTOH I agree on the causes you cite.

It generally gives you nothing useful, as the prisoner will say
anything to stop the pain. The point is that people are fallible and
they resort to things that don't really work to satisfy those higher
in rank or authority.

Sure, but again suppose I beat on a guy until he tells me where his buddies
are hideing. I eagerly tell my boss and a patrol is sent to catch them too.
But the patrol gets ambushed and shot up because that info was wrong. I'd
prolly get fragged.

America is at war
 

OzOne wrote
"Vito" scribbled thusly:

I don't think we ever handed anyone over for the *purpose* of having them
tortured.

You'd be incorrect there!

Why would we do that, knowing that any info they provided was unreliable?
Doesn't make sense.

America is at war
 

And you still think it's "just a few bad apples" and "it's not really
torture"?


Vito wrote:
I believe it is a combo of the two.

I used to train horses. I got excellent results by *never* hurting the horse
but instead simply convincing it that sooner or later it wound have to do my
bidding. This is a tried and proven technique.

Ever heard of "Behavioral psychology"? What you are describing is a sort
of rudimentary behaviorism. It is indeed a "tried & proven technique"
and one that can be vastly improved & made more effective by a little study.


... If I got a particular
hard case I would never, ever hurt it. I'd just trip it to the ground and
tie it there, set on it and pet it, offer treats and water, sometimes for
hours until it finally understood that I had complete control and gave up.

I think you have a bizarre idea of what "hurt" consists of. Please
describe in detail exactly how you trip a horse to the ground, tie it
up, and sit on it, without inflicting any pain.

BTW pain is an excellent tool for modifying behavior. However it can
easily be overused, and of course there is the psychological question of
whether or not it is being applied for a gainful purpose, or for the
sadistic pleasure of the person inflicting it.


Was that torture?

Not in my opinion. However I think it's pretty obvious that you'd
benefit from a beginner psych course or two at the local community college.




There in no doubt that some soft heads call the techniques that are
routinely and systematically used by pro interrogators "torture",

Uh huh.

What would you call it when an interrogator stubs out a cigarrette on
the eyelids of the person being questioned? When the person being
questioned is tied up, and has his head forecfully held under water
until he is unconsious? When he has his arms tied behind his back and
has his full weight suspeneded from his wrists until his elbows and
shoulders are not only dislocated but suffer permanent injury? When a
person being questioned is tied up and has an attack loosed upon him, so
that he suffers serious bite wounds on his head and other places?

I call this "torture" and it is documented to have been performed by
U.S. personnel. It is also not recommended by Army field intel manuals,
but is winked at all up & down the chain of command.



.. We are dealing with very dangerous and committed people here, people
who will *eagerly* kill themselves in order to kill an enemies women and
children. I see nothing wrong with depriving them of sleep, insulting the
religion that drives them to these outrages, and otherwise offending and
degrading them until, like a bad horse, they begin to doubt first themselves
then their conditioning and finally realise their captors are in control.

Depending on the methods used, I wouldn't object to that either,
although sleep deprivation can have serious side effects and if taken to
an extreme would definitely be a torture on par with that listed above.

The basic question is not who we are fighting, but who we are ourselves.
Is the U.S. an evil despotism that tortures prisoners? Or is it a
civilized & moral nation that obeys international laws?

If you set aside your principles for convenience, you never had any
principles.


admitting ...that the Bush Administration has set this policy from the
highest
levels...


On the contrary. I have yet to see evidence that Bush, Chaney, Rummy, et
al, ever made it US policy to inflict physical pain or torture (ie break
anybodys legs) on anybody.

Oh? Maybe you should go and find that patch of sand that Dave has his
head buried in... I'm sure he'll move over for you...

DSK

America is at war
 

"Vito" wrote in message
...
Want some fun? Try
explaining to some $5/hr security guard that he cannot open your briefcase
because he is not cleared to inspect its classified contents, nor is his
boss or a local cop, that they'll have to call in the FBI.


It is obvious that you only operate on the fringes of "sensitive" work.

It is easy to explain to a (5$/hr) security guard that he cannot open your
briefcase. The security guards *do* get some training.


If you have ever had a problem, then you really need to look at yourself.
Why were you unable to convince the officer that the contents of your
briefcase were sensitive?


Regards



Donal
--

America is at war
 

"DSK" wrote
Ever heard of "Behavioral psychology"? What you are describing is a sort
of rudimentary behaviorism. It is indeed a "tried & proven technique"
and one that can be vastly improved & made more effective by a little
study.

Yes! Professional interrogators have done more than a little study and are
still honing skills.

I think you have a bizarre idea of what "hurt" consists of. Please
describe in detail exactly how you trip a horse to the ground, tie it
up, and sit on it, without inflicting any pain.

It's called a "running W". Soft latigo leather straps are put just above
the rear hooves and a 2" thick (so it don't cut) rope collar around the
neck. A rope (ok "line") is run from the collar to the right hoof, back up
between the forelegs to the collar then to the left rear and finally back to
the collar in a W fashion. You hold the horses halter in your left hand and
pull the W rope with your right gradually drawing the horses rear legs under
him til he nearly sits. Then you simply push his shoulder with yours to
gently topple him over, holding his head off the ground with the halter.
Finally, tie the end of the W line to the halter to assure he doesn't rub
his eye struggling.


BTW pain is an excellent tool for modifying behavior. ....

Sure, as in spanking a kid. But not to extract truthful information. Thus a
guard may beat up a prisoner to 'modify his behavior' but never to get info.
The prisoner controls that situation - the beating stops when the bad
behavior stops.

What would you call it when an interrogator stubs out a cigarrette on
the eyelids of the person being questioned? When the person being
questioned is tied up, and has his head forecfully held under water
until he is unconsious? When he has his arms tied behind his back and
has his full weight suspeneded from his wrists until his elbows and
shoulders are not only dislocated but suffer permanent injury? When a
person being questioned is tied up and has an attack loosed upon him, so
that he suffers serious bite wounds on his head and other places?

Held back-down on a table while water is poured up his nose. Hands & feet
duct taped they tossed in a swimming pool (or cess pool)? Blindfolded then
tossed out of a helo.

I call this "torture" and it is documented to have been performed by
U.S. personnel. ....

When? These once common tortures have been abandoned for decades because
they yield *unreliable* info. I have seen no evidence that US interogators
are doing any of these things and I doubt they do so because they are
counter productive in that they harden the prisoners resolve to be
uncooperative. He may tell you anything to stop the pain - anything but the
truth.

.. We are dealing with very dangerous and committed people here, people
who will *eagerly* kill themselves in order to kill an enemies women and
children. I see nothing wrong with depriving them of sleep, insulting
the
religion that drives them to these outrages, and otherwise offending and
degrading them until, like a bad horse, they begin to doubt first
themselves
then their conditioning and finally realise their captors are in
control.

.... sleep deprivation .... if taken to
an extreme would definitely be a torture on par with that listed above.

I disagree - unless pain is used to keep them awake.

Is the U.S. an evil despotism that tortures prisoners? Or is it a
civilized & moral nation that obeys international laws?

Again, AFAIK it is not US policy to torture anybody. In fact even relatively
minor excursions over the line are routinely punished. We are obeying
international law. The relatively few held at Gitmo are not POWs.
International law says we can shoot them. It doesn't limit how long we hold
them before doing so.

admitting ...that the Bush Administration has set this policy from the
highest levels...


On the contrary. I have yet to see evidence that Bush, Chaney, Rummy,
et
al, ever made it US policy to inflict physical pain or torture (ie break
anybodys legs) on anybody.

Oh? Maybe you should go and find that patch of sand that Dave has his
head buried in... I'm sure he'll move over for you...

Better yet, why not provide us the evidence that makes you think otherwise.

America is at war
 

OzOne wrote
"Vito" scribbled thusly:
Why would we do that, knowing that any info they provided was unreliable?
Doesn't make sense.

Because any information is what was wanted.
You forget Vito that the US is in Iraq because they took 'any
information' correct or otherwise to justify actions or intended
actions.

With the 'information' gathered by torture, they could arrest hundreds
and bomb more hundreds justifying it with 'information gained from
captive terrorists', most of whom were released wiithout charge, just
mentally scarred.

Are you suggesting that the President of the United States would have people
tortured to extract lies he could use to propagandize the American people??

Hmmm ... you have a point there.

America is at war
 

"Donal" wrote
It is obvious that you only operate on the fringes of "sensitive" work.

Never claimed otherwise.

It is easy to explain to a (5$/hr) security guard that he cannot open your
briefcase. The security guards *do* get some training.

Then why was one of my subordinates detained for 6 hours?

If you have ever had a problem, then you really need to look at yourself.

Nope! If the person has proper identification and credentials, and is
dressed in a business suit, it should be sufficient.

America is at war
 

Vito wrote:
Again, AFAIK it is not US policy to torture anybody.

That's because you haven't bothered to look, and keep both hands clapped
over your ears so you won't hear.

... We are obeying
international law.

No, we are not. The Bush Administration thinks 'interntional law' is for
pussies.



...The relatively few held at Gitmo are not POWs.

Of course not.

International law says we can shoot them.

No, it does not.

Since you're not Dave, insisting that any & all evidence against your
statements is contrived & falsified leftist propaganda, I will humor you
and provide a few links. Since you *still* believe all that malarkey
about how the brave & noble Ho Chi Minh liberated Viet Nam and was
acclaimed by popular support, I doubt it will do any good.

http://reference.allrefer.com/encycl.../prisoner.html

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004.../usint8614.htm

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/

ANd here's a piece of liberal propaganda from that leftist pandering
trash, the Washington Post, which fingers Rummy directly
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...0540-2005Feb28

And that's not even the tip of the iceberg.

Why is President Bush insistent on Congress not restricting his "right"
to torture prisoners? Why are they denying that they knew these foreign
gov'ts practiced torture ("I mean, really... nobody told us!")?

The whole thing stinks.

DSK

America is at war
 

"Vito" wrote in message

Nope! If the person has proper identification and credentials, and is
dressed in a business suit, it should be sufficient.

Not if that person looks to be of Arab descent...

CM

America is at war
 

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote
It is obvious that you only operate on the fringes of "sensitive" work.

Never claimed otherwise.

It is easy to explain to a (5$/hr) security guard that he cannot open
your
briefcase. The security guards *do* get some training.

Then why was one of my subordinates detained for 6 hours?

I don't know. He should have simply been refused admission.


If you have ever had a problem, then you really need to look at
yourself.

Nope! If the person has proper identification and credentials, and is
dressed in a business suit, it should be sufficient.

That is absolute rubbish!!! The 9/11 hijackers could easily have satisfied
your criteria.


Regards


Donal
--

America is at war
 

"Donal" wrote
Nope! If the person has proper identification and credentials, and is
dressed in a business suit, it should be sufficient.

That is absolute rubbish!!! The 9/11 hijackers could easily have
satisfied
your criteria.

The 9/11 hijackers had US DoD ID badges and courier cards? I don't think so.
But, in any event, airport security didn't stop them then nor would it stop
them now. The problem was in the air. A hijacking had always meant a
little time spent in Cuba or other unintended destination but loss of life
had been very seldom. Hence air crews were trained to accomodate hjackers
willingly. And that's what happened in all but the last plane. That policy
has changed. I doubt 5 (?) hijackers could seize control of a plane
carrying 100+ people with box cutters today.

America is at war
 

"DSK" wrote
....., I doubt it will do any good.

Not when your references support my position and impeach yours.

http://reference.allrefer.com/encycl.../prisoner.html

prisoners of war, in international law, persons captured by a belligerent
while fighting in the military. International law includes rules on the
treatment of prisoners of war but extends protection only to combatants.
This excludes civilians who engage in hostilities (by international law they
are war criminals; see war crimes) and forces that do not observe
conventional requirements for combatants (see war, laws of).

war crimes, in international law, violations of the laws of war (see war,
laws of). Those accused have been tried by their own military and civilian
courts, by those of their enemy, and by expressly established international
tribunals.

Those being held at Gitmo are war criminals tried by Afghan military courts.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including
those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the
conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this
territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps,
including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following
conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war.

Those held at Gitmo were not fulfilling these conditions hence they are war
criminals not POWs

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004.../usint8614.htm

Interesting but not applicable to the war criminals held at Gitmo. Moreover,
it simply forbids torture. They are not being tortured.

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/

Rehash of the above .....

ANd here's a piece of liberal propaganda from that leftist pandering
trash, the Washington Post, which fingers Rummy directly
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...0540-2005Feb28

"The State Department's annual human rights report released yesterday
criticized countries for a range of interrogation practices it labeled as
torture, including sleep deprivation for detainees, confining prisoners in
contorted positions, stripping and blindfolding them and threatening them
with dogs -- methods *similar* to those approved at times by the Bush
administration for use on detainees in U.S. custody.
"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved in December 2002 a number of
severe measures, including the stripping of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, and using dogs to frighten them. He later rescinded those tactics and
signed off on a shorter list of "exceptional techniques," including 20-hour
interrogations, face slapping, stripping detainees to create "a feeling of
helplessness and dependence," and using dogs to increase anxiety."

So DoD and DoS disagree. I agree with DoD. YMMV

Why is President Bush insistent on Congress not restricting his "right"
to torture prisoners? Why are they denying that they knew these foreign
gov'ts practiced torture ("I mean, really... nobody told us!")?

I have no idea why Bush does things but my slight aquantance with psychology
suggests he is mad - that like many religious people, he hears "voices" he
attributes to God that tell him to do things. I never heard anyone deny
that these foreign government practiced torture, just that these governments
had promised not to torture the ones we deported to them.

America is at war
 

"Vito" wrote
I have no idea why Bush does things but my slight aquantance with
psychology
suggests he is mad - that like many religious people, he hears "voices" he
attributes to God that tell him to do things......


One day a fourth-grade teacher asked the children what their fathers did for
a living. All the typical answers came up: fireman, mechanic, businessman,
salesman, doctor, lawyer, and so forth.


But little Justin was being uncharacteristically quiet, so when the teacher
prodded him about his father, he replied, "My father's an exotic dancer in a
gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes in front of other men and they put
money in his underwear. Sometimes, if the offer is really good, he will go
home with some guy and make love with him for money."


The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other
children to work on some exercises and then took little Justin aside to ask
him, "Is that really true about your father?"


"No," the boy said, "He works for the Republican National Committee and
helped re-elect George Bush, but I was too embarrassed to say that in front
of the other kids."

America is at war
 

....., I doubt it will do any good.


Vito wrote:
Not when your references support my position and impeach yours.

Hardly


Those being held at Gitmo are war criminals tried by Afghan military courts.


Yeah, right.


Those held at Gitmo were not fulfilling these conditions hence they are war
criminals not POWs


And did it say that war criminals can be held indefinitely, shot on
whim, etc etc, without trial?

I notice that you have yet to provide one single scrap (other than your
conitnued ludicrous assertion) that these prisoners have had anything
resembling a trial.




Cuba, and using dogs to frighten them. He later rescinded those tactics and
signed off on a shorter list of "exceptional techniques," including 20-hour
interrogations, face slapping, stripping detainees to create "a feeling of
helplessness and dependence," and using dogs to increase anxiety."

So DoD and DoS disagree. I agree with DoD. YMMV

So, no you realize that Rumsfeld *did* give the orders? Only you think
it's OK because he changed his mind... sort of?




Why is President Bush insistent on Congress not restricting his "right"
to torture prisoners? Why are they denying that they knew these foreign
gov'ts practiced torture ("I mean, really... nobody told us!")?


I have no idea why Bush does things but my slight aquantance with psychology
suggests he is mad - that like many religious people, he hears "voices" he
attributes to God that tell him to do things. I never heard anyone deny
that these foreign government practiced torture, just that these governments
had promised not to torture the ones we deported to them.


Yeah right.

Never mind, I'm not interested in arguing with your "voices."

DSK

America is at war
 

"Dave" wrote
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 09:04:53 -0500, "Vito" said:

Those accused have been tried by their own military and civilian
courts, by those of their enemy, and by expressly established
international
tribunals.

Vito, continued repetition of this falsehood will not make it so.

Problem is you keep looking for a US or UK type trial with all the pomp and
circumstance. It doesn't happen that way in most of the world including most
"Western Democracies" where the accused may not even be invited to his
trial. But it is a legal trial none the less. Correct me if I am wrong but
in Muslim countries a Mullah hears the evidence and passes judgement. In
Afghanistan, that might be a local tribal leader. Either way, that "court"
has the local legal authority to find you guilty and put a death sentance on
you - right? That's what happens if you go to Afghnistan and make trouble.
If you're lucky you might survive in Gitmo.

America is at war
 

"DSK" wrote
And did it say that war criminals can be held indefinitely, shot on
whim, etc etc, without trial?

Yes.

I notice that you have yet to provide one single scrap (other than your
conitnued ludicrous assertion) that these prisoners have had anything
resembling a trial.

Like I told Dave, you keep looking for a US or UK type trial with all the
hoopla, but that's not the way the rest of the world works, including many
"western democracies" using Napolionic law. There, a judge hears the
evidence, determines guilt and passes sentance. The accused may or may not
be invited. Happened to a dude I knew - got drunk and wrecked his car in
Mexico and did a year. In Afghanistan the judge is likely some local tribal
elder but he has the same authority. Bottom line is if you want US/UK
justice don't get drunk and wreck in Mexico and don't go making trouble in
Afghanistan.

So, no you realize that Rumsfeld *did* give the orders? Only you think
it's OK because he changed his mind... sort of?

Sure, I simply dispute whether the things he OK'd are torture.



Why is President Bush insistent on Congress not restricting his "right"
to torture prisoners? Why are they denying that they knew these foreign
gov'ts practiced torture ("I mean, really... nobody told us!")?


I have no idea why Bush does things but my slight aquantance with
psychology
suggests he is mad - that like many religious people, he hears "voices"
he
attributes to God that tell him to do things. I never heard anyone deny
that these foreign government practiced torture, just that these
governments
had promised not to torture the ones we deported to them.


Yeah right.

Never mind, I'm not interested in arguing with your "voices."

DSK

America is at war
 

And did it say that war criminals can be held indefinitely, shot on
whim, etc etc, without trial?


Vito wrote:
Yes.


Where?


I notice that you have yet to provide one single scrap (other than your
conitnued ludicrous assertion) that these prisoners have had anything
resembling a trial.


Like I told Dave, you keep looking for a US or UK type trial with all the
hoopla, but that's not the way the rest of the world works

Yeah, I' sure... blah blah blah.

There is no evidence that even a rudimentary tribunal has been held for
even a small minority of these prisoners. The U.S. gov't and the
military has not made any such claim.

You're pushing hot air, buddy. You have no facts and you can't admit the
truth, same as our discussion on Viet Nam.

Bye. I hope you and your voices have a good time together.

DSK

America is at war
 

OzOne wrote
International News
Finally 5....only 495 to go!

Five more Guantanamo detainees charged .....

Jeeze. We decide to give 5 (out of 495?) convicted war criminals a US
Military trial, even though international law allows us to return all 500 to
Afghanitan for execution, and y'all complain?? Oh well - proves no good
deed goes unpunished I guess.

IIRC most detainees are from Muslim states other than Afghanistan. Can we
agree that the US should return them to Afghanistan or to their home
countries (at our descretion) for some real torture and execution rather
than holding them any longer??

America is at war
 

OzOne wrote
CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons....

Yup. I saw US agents torturing suspects on TV last night. I'd surfed into a
story about a plot to blow up Los Angeles. I suspect it's truthfulness
because the President of the US was black but it's prolly as factual as some
of the "proof" I've seen here on reeky. Sorry I didn't stay to get the
title, et cetera.

America is at war
 

"Vito" said:
Problem is you keep looking for a US or UK type trial with all the pomp and
circumstance.


Dave wrote:
No, the problem is that you insist on trying to stretch the word "trial"
beyond all recognition. As I understand your position it's that if one
person in authority looks at a prisoner and says "I think he should go to
jail" or "I think he should go to Gitmo" that's a "trial." Perhaps in some
language, but not in English. It's the antithesis of a "trial." It's the
totally arbitrary exercise of raw power.


Agreed, and well said.

If nothing else, Vito can be proud of bringing us together on an issue!

Another point I'd like to add: the notion that just any old body can be
grabbed any old where, and tortured... or held prisoner indefinitely...
is contrary to basic law. Vito's assertion that captives can be held at
whim and shot any time the captor likes, is barbaric.

DSK

America is at war
 

"DSK" wrote
Where?
I'm sorry, I thot you'd read it. Musta been on reeky motorcycles.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Article 4 defines POW.

Also: "Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its
jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity
card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental,
personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The
identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or
both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party
to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed
forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be
issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war
upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him"

Note that those held at Gitmo do not meet these criteria.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

Article 5
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied
that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in
activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person
shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present
Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person,
be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a
spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile
to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases
where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having
forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

Full text
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...s/geneva1.html

Enjoy!

BTW

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment
and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or
occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of
which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected
by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of
a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be
regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals
has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

Thus a Saudi (for example) caught in Afghanistan and held by the US is not a
"protected person" because we have diplomatic relations with the Saudis.

America is at war
 

"Dave" wrote
....... As I understand your position it's that if one
person in authority looks at a prisoner and says "I think he should go to
jail" or "I think he should go to Gitmo" that's a "trial." .....

That's right! If the prisoner is captured sans uniform or ID card
international law allows it. It may be arbitrary and even barbaric by our
US/UK standards but that is exactly the way most of the world does things.
More important that is the way the people we are talking about do things,
the was they treat themselves, and that is the standard they are trying to
impose on us, and others, by terrorism.

America is at war
 

"DSK" wrote
If nothing else, Vito can be proud of bringing us together on an issue!

Good. Y'all compassionate liberals otta agree on something.

Another point I'd like to add: the notion that just any old body can be
grabbed any old where, and tortured... or held prisoner indefinitely...
is contrary to basic law. Vito's assertion that captives can be held at
whim and shot any time the captor likes, is barbaric.

But Doug, we're not talking about "just any old body" or "any old where".
We are talking about combatants captured out of uniform and without ID
trying to reimpose a system that shot women for learning to read. Nor is it
my assertion. International law says if one wants to be treated like a POW
or Protected Person one must behave like a soldier or a noncombatant. These
people did neither.

America is at war
 

Vito wrote:
But Doug, we're not talking about "just any old body" or "any old where".
We are talking about combatants captured out of uniform and without ID

No, we're talking about people that were handed over to military custody
by OGAs or even allied Afghan local forces. Many of them have a very
murky trail or custody, and an even more distant & foggy body of
evidence against them.

The long and short of it is, there are guys from some place outside the
U.S. (or so the Bush Administration says) who had the bad luck to get
grabbed & imprisoned. Some of them most likely are terrorists, which is
why the military doesn't want to let them go. And if they are granted
any legal process at all, the evidence against them will have to be
produced or they will have to be released.

In other words, they are being locked down for convenience.

A rather strange way of spreading freedom & democracy, don't you think?

.... Nor is it
my assertion. International law says if one wants to be treated like a POW
or Protected Person one must behave like a soldier or a noncombatant. These
people did neither.

You are repeatedly and purposefully missing this point... I'm not
claiming they are POWs. Nobody is claiming that.

OTOH nobody (but you that is) has claimed that theyhave received any
type of hearing, trial, due process, etc etc.

However I *am* claiming (because it is a fact) that there is NO law
saying it's OK to hold prisoners indefinitely, with no reason, no trial,
no due process at all (it's also stupid & expensive, but hey what do you
expect); and as for your claims that it would be legal to torture these
people, or shoot them "at whim" is simply barbaric... as well as being
far outside any law.

DSK

America is at war
 

DSK wrote:


Another point I'd like to add: the notion that just any old body can be
grabbed any old where, and tortured... or held prisoner indefinitely...
is contrary to basic law. Vito's assertion that captives can be held at
whim and shot any time the captor likes, is barbaric.

DSK

Barbric is stomping on hanging, then burning Americans on a bridge,
Barberic is cutting out tongues, cutting off hands, and chopping off
heads while chanting to Allah on TV.
Barbaric is gassing a whole town full of children and women. How about
raping a woman in front of her husband, then killing the husband is
that Barbaric enough?

Your assertion that we are doing things on a whim is idiotic, and
wrong.

Did you get any metals for your service in the Untied States Navy
Doug?

Perhaps you should motor your trawler to Gitmo and toss them over the
fence.

Capt. American

America is at war
 

Capt.American wrote:
Barbric is stomping on hanging, then burning Americans on a bridge,

What about doing the same to non-Americans?

Barberic is cutting out tongues, cutting off hands, and chopping off
heads while chanting to Allah on TV.
Barbaric is gassing a whole town full of children and women. How about
raping a woman in front of her husband, then killing the husband is
that Barbaric enough?


I will bow to your expertise on what is barbaric.

I guess you feel that it's OK for your own leaders to indulge in
barbaric actions?


Your assertion that we are doing things on a whim is idiotic, and
wrong.


Why, because you say so?

Did you get any metals for your service in the Untied States Navy
Doug?

No, but I did get several medals.


Perhaps you should motor your trawler to Gitmo and toss them over the
fence.


Maybe I should wear them on 4th of July... and I do.

DSK

America is at war
 

You have so much concern for the scum at Gitmo, I would think you would
see it as your duty to toss anything you see as a sign of respect for
today's service man, women.

After all they have in your eyes ( and most liberal eyes) become
barbaic, capable of torturing the fine fellows scooped up without cause
from other countries. Our boys have taken away the due process that the
mis-understood captives deserve.

How could you pin on your cheast a medal or ribbon that is a farce and
cover-up for these barbarians?

Toss it over that fence Doug!
People will remember such a firm and clear action.

Remember good men died for you to have that right! Not like todays
Barbarians.

Capt. American

America is at war
 

Capt.American wrote:
You have so much concern for the scum at Gitmo, I would think you would
see it as your duty to toss anything you see as a sign of respect for
today's service man, women.

You are very badly mistaken.

My concern is not at all for the prisoners.



After all they have in your eyes ( and most liberal eyes) become
barbaic, capable of torturing the fine fellows scooped up without cause
from other countries.

Well, some of them have done just that... and the chain of command has
not taken up the slack.


How could you pin on your cheast a medal or ribbon that is a farce and
cover-up for these barbarians?


Because my medals are no such thing.

Why do you want your leaders to act like ignorant & vicious savages? Why
do you glorify the criminal actions, which are the same things done by
the evil tyrant(s) we have fought (several times in history) to displace?

My concern is that some of our proud & profession military will become
no better than politically motivated thugs, stormtroopers with no honor
and no duty towards their country & their fellow citizens, only
obedience towards a cruel & capricious despot. My concern is that if the
United States acts in a barbaric & evil manner, that we will be
barbaric & evil people. Of course, some already are, but so far they are
aberrations rather the norm. You can chose your path, I guess that's
what freedom is for. But you can never make a virtue out of your
glorification of evil.

DSK