Secret Jails and Torture

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

I think everyone involved in war is tramatized to one extent or another, but we are talking about adults who are performing some tramatizing acts themselves.

So no, tramatizing a prisoner is not torture.

---

I think tramatizing on purpose is something diffrent from just getting tramatized by a situation

Biting prisoners by accident..... How can that happen? In the old days people prisoner fell a lot to explain their wounds and bruces.

And we are not talking about people who performing tramatizing acts themselfs...We are talking about people suspected of performing tranmatizing acts. And in the abu grahib prison some of the prisoners were just jailed for breaching the curfue.

You accuse me of speculation because I have no evidence, but human rights reports give serious hints in the other direction... Do you have prove torture didn't and doesn't happen in U.S. controlled situations from independent sources?

P.S. I do not think you are sick. I do think the standard of torture you posted is wrong and I hope you will think it through again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

At the this stage it's alleged. I hope that this story is without foundation

---

McCain said torture is ineffective at getting information. He knows from first hand experience.

If you torture someone for information, if they actually know the information, they'll give you false information. If they don't know the information, if they're innocent, they'll give you false information (to stop the torture).

It is the most retarded way of getting intelligence.

Why don't people use Sodium Pentathol (truth serum) and lie detectors?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

Why don't people use Sodium Pentathol (truth serum) and lie detectors?

---

Because human beings can be trained to 'beat' them, and information, just like torture, is unreliable, because the tester has no way of determining whether his current subject has been trained to withstand such interrogations.

Quote:

---

McCain said torture is ineffective at getting information. He knows from first hand experience.

---

He says that now that he is trying to make political points, but soon after he was released he admitted that it did work on him.

Quote:

---

I do think the standard of torture you posted is wrong and I hope you will think it through again.

---

I have thought it through; a lot. During times of war I give more leeway to the interrogators. I'd rather see one enemy tortured than one of ours killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

I have thought it through; a lot. During times of war I give more leeway to the interrogators. I'd rather see one enemy tortured than one of ours killed.

---

If you want to bring freedom and democratie and condemn Saddam for his inhuman actions so much you invade his country.

This could be a tat hypocritic don't you think so?

Speaking as the 'devils lawyer':
"Mr S. Hussein was merely fighting terrorism and preventing killings with his regime, maybehe was a 'shade' less subtle but can you blame someone for doing in principal the same things you allow your government to do to others?"

Leaves a serious issue unanswered:
Why is this okay for Non-U.S. citizens but is it not allowed on U.S. citizens,
or within U.S. borders?

In fact the reality is... if several people would tip me as a dangerous terrorist
I would end up having the same treatment. (this scenario is based on a documented case in Afganistan were someone was tipped as a terrorist and tortured so the tipper could steal his belongings)

And another thing your statments suggest you subscribe the statement:
"the goal(saving american lives) legalizes the means(torture)."
As you might be aware that is the same logic terrorists use for their actions.

Quote:

---

As you might be aware that is the same logic terrorists use for their actions.

---

I understand that the terrorists are using what they see as the most effective means by which they can fight the U.S. I don't fault them for this, but they have declared war on the U.S. so we should use what we determine to be the most effective means to combat them.

Unfortunately, one of the methods the terrorists have available to them, that we don't have, is the weapon of public opinion. It seems to always be on the side of the little guy no matter how repugnant the little guy is. If they can just persuade enough people like you that what we are doing is wrong, then they can win. They know this and use their accomplices in the media to exploit every opportunity they get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

If they can just persuade enough people like you that what we are doing is wrong, then they can win. They know this and use their accomplices in the media to exploit every opportunity they get.

---

How about another option: the terrorists are deffinitly wrong and the US are not infallible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

Unfortunately, one of the methods the terrorists have available to them, that we don't have, is the weapon of public opinion. It seems to always be on the side of the little guy no matter how repugnant the little guy is. If they can just persuade enough people like you that what we are doing is wrong, then they can win. They know this and use their accomplices in the media to exploit every opportunity they get.

---

I'm sure the U.S. is using the media to their advantage as well and far better.
The media use off the terrorist I've seen were video tape broadcasted by al Jazeera. And frankly they horrified me. So I even fail to see how the terrorists manipulate the media to send messages in their advantage in europe at least. I share the view of grillkip in this matter. but I will even go further.
I'm against it because it is an deniel off my human rights as well (being dutch and not a U.S. citizen). If I was marked a terrorist,( just like a U.S. senator was on the list of dangerous people for a while) I would be kidnapped, and interogatted 'with force' with no extradition procedure or anything to protect my rights. This is the primal reason I'm against it nothing to do with the ideals or goals any terrorist has, pure egoism.

Quote:

---

I'm sure the U.S. is using the media to their advantage as well and far better... So I even fail to see how the terrorists manipulate the media to send messages.

---

You've got to be kidding.

Quote:

---

attaching electrodes: not torture, causing severe pain by applying current is torture

---

It is my understanding that the opposite of this statement is more consistent on what few studies have been done concerning coersion. If you think about your own experience, you will probably agree.

Some of us have a fairly strong ability to resist pain, but almost all of us have a VERY strong aversion to pain. We don't seek pain for pain's sake alone. For instance:

If you have ever broken a bone, you probably know that it doesn't hurt all that much (I hiked about 1,000 miles on a broken bone, it hurt, but I could ignore it). We have physiological means to deal with pain, which makes sense, since pain is not a 'thing', but a firing of certain neurons. Block those neurons, and you will feel NO pain.

On the other hand, everybody can anticipate pretty well. Most of the techniques that have been described as torture deal with anticipation of pain rather than actual pain.

As for it being justified: The death rate is still one per person. We don't get to choose whether we die, we only get to choose how we live. If we are not willing to risk our own lives; if we are not willing to risk the potential that we may be killed; for the priciples on which this country was founded, then the US as a concept has already been destroyed.

Abusing people is not justified to protect the principles of equality and justice upon which this country was founded. If we continue to feel that there are exceptions that can be made, corners that can be cut, to protect the principle, then the principle is a dream that has ended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dnereb

I'm sure the U.S. is using the media to their advantage as well and far better.
The media use off the terrorist I've seen were video tape broadcasted by al Jazeera. And frankly they horrified me. So I even fail to see how the terrorists manipulate the media to send messages in their advantage in europe at least.

---

I wasn't kidding about this.
I've never seen a radio/tv broadcast or newspaper article that justified the actions of terrorists in any way shape or form. No justification by terrorists for kidnapping as well. I did see TV broadcasts and newspaper articles justifing these actions done by the U.S. government

Can you name any serious radio/Tv program or newspaper in the west that did?
(please keep your examples in English German or French so I can understand/read them.)

If the U.S. is so good at manipulating the media, why is a large portion of the world's population anti-U.S.?

A good example of how well the enemy manipulates the world media:

Remember the big battle for Fallujah in 2004? Do you remember the press that the U.S. military was getting. News reports gathered by Al-Jazera were disseminated around the world that claimed the military had killed thousands of civilians and were running around raping women. This was totally false and was verified to be so by the reporters that were imbedded with the U.S. military.

For some reason (bias) we only received the false stories on our nightly news broadcasts. This very fact forced the Marines to have to cease their taking of Fallujah and allowed the enemy to rebuild its strength. In the end the Marines went back in and cleaned up the city with very little innocent civilian loss of life since the civilians were allowed to leave the city beforehand.

Here is an excellent book on the battle for Fallujah and Ramadi: No True Glory: The Battle for Fallujah written by former marine and assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs Bing West.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/055...lance&n=283155

I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in what went on over there back then. It’s not a rosy picture, but shows both the good things as well as the many mistakes the U.S. military and government made back then.

Bing West is a pretty good writer, I would recommend his stories just for that reason.

Frankly, I never heard any negative press about the US actions in Fallujah (I had to use Moeur's spelling, as I could never get it on my own, so if I'm wrong, I blame....BUSH....no...wait, I blame Moeur)....damn, took so long writing that aside, I forgot what I was saying....anyways, the only negative press I heard about those actions were properly attributed to their source, which allowed me to accurately discount their credibility. If you were getting your news from a source that did not properly attibute their references, perhaps you should switch news sources.

Edit: Oh yeah, I had no idea that we changed any policy due to bad press I never heard. However, since I hadn't heard the bad press, any policy shift based on it would have baffled me anyways.

What about the press going on about the US's illegal use of the "chemical" weapon white phospherous in Fallujah? Oh wait, it's not a chemical weapon nor is it illegal unless used directly against civilians. There are countless examples like this, just because the headline doesn't say "Terrorists good, US Bad" doesn't mean that's not the intended message.

A more recent example was yesterday. The New York Times (ugh) story of counterfeit ballots streaming into Iraq citing a single, unnamed source. Reuters (ugh again) then runs the story that it's not true at all! LOL

CNN's Miles O'Brien interviewed a US Army Colonel:

COL. STEPHENSON: We received that report very early this morning, and as with any report like that, we'll get to the source and try and confirm whether or not it's true, which we have not been able to do yet.

O'Brien: "Well, how good were these counterfeits? I mean, is there some concern they could easily be mistaken for real ballots?"

COL. STEPHENSON: Well, we haven't even confirmed that the story is even true, so we can't assess how valid the ballots might be.

O'BRIEN: So you're personally unaware of the story? We've been reporting it, other news media have been reporting it, you're not aware of it?

COL. STEPHENSON: Oh, I'm very aware of it. We just have no corroboration that it's true, and we're trying to confirm and do just what you mentioned is find out are there in fact ballots there and could they be used as counterfeits. Again, we have a lot of steps in place to prevent that even if it were to come through the country.

Rediculous! If CNN is reporting it, it must be true! Even their own reporter just doesn't get it.

That's the media trying to get a scoop, not picking sides..

(funny quote btw :))

Quote:

---

We've been reporting it, other news media have been reporting it

---

Not scooping, the sides were picked long ago and it's painfully obvious.

Well.... maybe hyping rather :blush:

I guess we are seeing this more and more since the advent of 24hr news broadcasting, the driving up of rumours or unnewsworthy events. I still say that the channel(s) in question are not taking position against the US.

Well, you're half right. :D

And in related news...

Bush and McCain reach agreement

Moeur
the U.S. Army openly manipulates the media
it's called: embedded reporting.

About fallujha:
An estimate 50,000 civilians remained in fellujah during the November fight (the second one)when the entire city was declared a free fire zone by the U.S. Army. An estimate 5,000 civilians have died in this 'incedent'.
These estimate where made by amnesty international based on testemoney's of iraqi medical personel.

You can argue it was falsified or doubt the numbers.... whatever.
But I trust Amnesty International to be a reliable source, that tries to represent the estimated fact as thruthfull as possible.
Give or take e percent it points to a 'collateral damage' of something around 10% of the civilians present at the time.

As I write Bush finnaly retracts his policy on torture, cruel and degrading treating of foreign prisoners. (Still find it weird U.S. terrorists were excluded)
So I hereby end my 'contributions' to this thread.

Merry and peacfull Christmas ..... or.. ehrm glp...Must... Be... politcly correct... Have a nice Holidays http://community.the-underdogs.org/s...bottleplus.gif http://community.the-underdogs.org/s.../breadplus.gif

well I'm glad this agreement satisfies you and perhaps others like you. It really doesn't mean too much since what constitutes "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" is not spelled out in the agreement. The whole purpose of the agreement (besides gaining political points for McCain in his bid for the 2008 presidental nomination) is to appease the hand wringers. How quickly they forgot 9/11.

Embedded reporters are far from manipulated by the military. If that was the case - Kevin Sites wouldn't have released the video of the Marine shooting the wounded guy in the Mosque. Or the Fox guy release the video of Marines shooting the "unarmed" man who was wounded and trying to crawl across the street. Wasn't until later that the rest of the video was released showing the grenade the "unarmed" guy was crawling towards.

It's totally believable that 5k civilians were killed in Fallujah. But, let's not leave out the makeshift jail basements where scores of tortured and executed Iraqi's were found. Only five were found alive and were treated and evacuated by the evil Americans. Not to mention the entire families found shot and killed so their houses could be used to stage attacks against American soldiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

well I'm glad this agreement satisfies you and perhaps others like you. It really doesn't mean too much since what constitutes "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" is not spelled out in the agreement. The whole purpose of the agreement (besides gaining political points for McCain in his bid for the 2008 presidental nomination) is to appease the hand wringers. How quickly they forgot 9/11.

---

I agree with the first sentence. I conditionally agree with the second sentence, though I think the wording is inappropriate. Into the crowd that is dismissed as hand-wringers go all people with strong principled stands that it is better die for their beliefs than to accepts torture. This would include Ghandi and Jesus. I don't think Bush is better than either one, but then again, I don't think Bush is better than cabbage either, so that's not saying anything.

I don't understand the last sentence. What was forgotten about 9/11? American values? Miscommunication? Bad people exist? Good people exist? What? I can't see how the events of 9/11 mean that America must be allowed to torture people.

One of the main reasons 9/11 was permitted to happen in the first place was that the tools the CIA needed to combat terrorism were taken away from them.

Now, don't think that I am advocating that the CIA be allowed to go around and torture anyone they please, but cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment should still be tools that they can use.

Quote:

---

Into the crowd that is dismissed as hand-wringers go all people with strong principled stands that it is better die for their beliefs than to accepts torture.

---

No, these people are pretty rare so I don't think McCain is too concerned about getting their votes. The "Hand-Wringers" are much more common, they are more concerned with what other people are going to think about them than any sort of deeper values.

They are only rare if WE don't try to be them. However, I don't think they are nearly as rare as you think. I still believe that Americans will do the right thing if that right thing is clear. Just look at the fourth plane.

There are plenty of people out there who take a stand on principle. If they are not evident in politics, it's because it is bread out of them.


The tool the CIA needed was communication. The signs were there, the communication was not. We did not need to give up any liberties, or violate the principles of decency to which we all subscribe to have prevented 9/11. All that was needed is that certain people needed to be able to communicate, and think clearly. That ability wasn't there, but the history of the world shows that it never IS there.

For every war that this country has ever gotten into, the first step was generally to weed out a large number of officers who were effective in a peacetime army, but not in a wartime army. This has been even more true for England. The same is true for most other endeavors of this nature. The culture builds up for dealing effectively with one situation, then the situation changes, and the culture has to respond. It will. Give it time. But we shouldn't abandon our principles to get there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

He says that now that he is trying to make political points, but soon after he was released he admitted that it did work on him.

I have thought it through; a lot. During times of war I give more leeway to the interrogators. I'd rather see one enemy tortured than one of ours killed.

---

From an interview I heard of McCain, he said he named names after being tortured, but it was names a football players from an NFL team.

I mean it's so easy to make crap up, and there really it is very hard for an interrogator to know if the information is legit. Because even if he can tell if someone is scincere about the information they are giving, they might be fed a lie themselves. One of the tactics of war is sending "doomed spies" to the enemy. Bascially spies you fed bad information to, and send to the enemy to "unwittingly" reveal that info.

Of course thats just putting aside from the fact that the practice is unethical to begin with.

Yes, several of the tools missing dealt with communication. One of the roadblocks to better communication was what is called by some as the Gorelick wall. See the following:
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0404190849.asp
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110004956
This impediment was removed with the patriot act which is scheduled to expire at the end of the year, thanks to some hand-wringers. We’ll be right back where we started before 911 treating terrorism as a legal issue rather than a military one.

Other roadblocks were put in front of the intelligence agencies after the Church Committee investigations of 1975. These included restrictions on whom the agencies could work with to gather information.

Quote:

---

Moeur
the U.S. Army openly manipulates the media
it's called: embedded reporting.

---

I was going to let this one go, but the more I think about it the more stupid it sounds.

So, putting reporters on the front line so that they can actually witness events as they unfold is manipulation of the media? But calling in Al-Jazeera to photograph dead people, call them civilians, and tell the reporters that the evil Americans slaughtered them is not media manipulation?

Get real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

Yes, several of the tools missing dealt with communication. One of the roadblocks to better communication was what is called by some as the Gorelick wall. See the following:
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0404190849.asp
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110004956
This impediment was removed with the patriot act which is scheduled to expire at the end of the year, thanks to some hand-wringers. We’ll be right back where we started before 911 treating terrorism as a legal issue rather than a military one.

Other roadblocks were put in front of the intelligence agencies after the Church Committee investigations of 1975. These included restrictions on whom the agencies could work with to gather information.

---

Only a few parts of the Patriot Act have sunset provisions. The rest are law until actively rescinded.

We have a representative who is a very vocal opponent of the Patriot Act, and always has been. If you know anything about the state of Idaho, you will realize that the chances of us ever electing anybody far enough left to be considered even a moderate conservative are slim to none. Not exactly the type of person I thought you meant.

Having said that, I don't believe this representative is characterized as either liberal or conservative. He's republican, but he's different....in sooooo many ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

I was going to let this one go, but the more I think about it the more stupid it sounds.

So, putting reporters on the front line so that they can actually witness events as they unfold is manipulation of the media? But calling in Al-Jazeera to photograph dead people, call them civilians, and tell the reporters that the evil Americans slaughtered them is not media manipulation?

Get real.

---

I agree. Freezing out the media is bad, embedding has a long and distinguished history throughout America's wars. We may not have called it embedding, but the idea was the same. Reporters who are out with the line soldiers see a different kind of a war. They have no more understanding of large-scale strategy than do any of the soldiers, but they have a great understanding of the small-scale tactical issues facing the soldiers.