al-Qaida Detainees 'Disappeared'

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: alchemize
If these two guys aren't getting tortured for every bit of info they have, then we clearly need a stronger administration in power.

Yea, perhaps we should have tortured, raped, and murdered more Iraqi detainees at Abu Hirab because they are a bunch of no-good terrorists.

Who's this we? Are you torturing rapist murderer? I'm not.

Another who wants to castrate our intelligence services. You do realize these two guys are TOP members of Al-Qaida? Or do you subscribe to the theory that it was all a setup by the Mossad perhaps?

Alchemize, you are flip-flopping all over your own words. "I'm not a torturing rapist murderer but I advocate it."

I certainly have no plans to rape, murder or torture. I don't think any of our soldiers should rape or torture. They are trained to kill, and they should do that.

We have aspects of our intelligence services, and always have, that apply interrogation methods that bleeding heart liberals call torture (such as sleep depravation, drugs, threats, forceful interrogation) against high-value sources. And as long as they aren't US citizens, I do advocate that, assuming they follow the internal procedures they have against abusing this.

As I mentioned earlier, the US take lives without due process. Every president elected has done that, even good ole jimmy carter. Terrorism is an act of war, captured terrorists are not different than captured soviet spies.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: alchemize
So then I assume you also disagree with air-strikes on terrorists? Where's the trial and due process?

If we're stupid enough to capture them, then we have to abide by the law. There's a difference between justice on the battlefield and justice in a jail cell. By capturing them, we're making them people, and people have rights. Enemy soldiers on the battlefield have rights too, but right to a fair trial isn't one of them.

What are you talking about? When they are a target on the ground, they aren't people? That's silly.

See my statement below on soviet spies versus terrorists. No difference. I don't recall anyone howling about the geneva conventions whenver a top spy was captured.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: alchemize
What are you talking about? When they are a target on the ground, they aren't people? That's silly.

See my statement below on soviet spies versus terrorists. No difference. I don't recall anyone howling about the geneva conventions whenver a top spy was captured.

As soon as someone is removed from the context of the battlefield, the rights attributed to that person change. The reasons are called "Geneva Conventions." If you want to kill someone, you do it on the battlefield. Once they're in your custody, they have a different set of rights that MUST be abided by. If these rights are abridged, then we're no better than the terrorists. Terrorists abridge these rights for citizens by killing (life), kidnapping (liberty), and bombing (pursuit of happiness/property). Like you said in your post above, if our intelligence agencies can interrogate within the bounds of Geneva, then go for it. However, why would they hide them if they were abiding by the Conventions? That doesn't stand up to inspection.

I'm not old enough to recall what was done with Soviet spies, but I would argue the same case for them.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: alchemize
So much more the reason we shouldn't announce these captures, as the bleeding heart liberals come out in droves. Yes, let's put them all on CourtTV and have The Dream Team II defend them. It's the American way. Grant a non-citizen terrorist the rights of a citizen, even if it means the sacrifice of the rights (or lives) of many citizens. Perhaps next we need an approval from the World Court to conduct military operations.


If these two guys aren't getting tortured for every bit of info they have, then we clearly need a stronger administration in power.

geneva convention states that the red cross must be notified of all prisoners

 

[Czar]

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/us1004/

 

[jackschmittusa]

If the U.S. cannot lead the world by example, it does not deserve the position of world leadership. How can we extoll the virtues of the rule of law and ignore the law ourselves?

The Geneva Accords are a long, boring read (I am sure GWB never read them) but in essense, they tried to identify every catagory of person that might be encountered in a conflict, and define the minimum standard of treatment for each when taken captive. Remember, minimum standard of humane treatment. GWB took a stroke of a pen, created the term "enemy combatant", and declared that since this class of people was not mentioned in the Geneva Accords, they were exempt from the internationally accepted standard of humane treatment. IMHO, this is a disgrace. We castigate other nations regularly for human rights violations, up to and including, invading Iraq for Sadamm's violation of the human rights of his citizens (at least, according to this week's explination for the war). How can we tolorate a policy where, by Presidential fiat, a class of people can be created who are not intitled to basic human rights? What will the lable be that creates a group that includes you or your loved ones?

 

[AndrewR]

October surprise from the left leaning group! But it's NOT politically motivated according to the liberals! Classic.

:roll:

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
If the U.S. cannot lead the world by example, it does not deserve the position of world leadership. How can we extoll the virtues of the rule of law and ignore the law ourselves?

The Geneva Accords are a long, boring read (I am sure GWB never read them) but in essense, they tried to identify every catagory of person that might be encountered in a conflict, and define the minimum standard of treatment for each when taken captive. Remember, minimum standard of humane treatment. GWB took a stroke of a pen, created the term "enemy combatant", and declared that since this class of people was not mentioned in the Geneva Accords, they were exempt from the internationally accepted standard of humane treatment. IMHO, this is a disgrace. We castigate other nations regularly for human rights violations, up to and including, invading Iraq for Sadamm's violation of the human rights of his citizens (at least, according to this week's explination for the war). How can we tolorate a policy where, by Presidential fiat, a class of people can be created who are not intitled to basic human rights? What will the lable be that creates a group that includes you or your loved ones?

I'm no expert on Geneva, but if these people do somehow fall through the cracks and are uncovered, then the Conventions need to be updated, not worked around. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: alchemize
What are you talking about? When they are a target on the ground, they aren't people? That's silly.

See my statement below on soviet spies versus terrorists. No difference. I don't recall anyone howling about the geneva conventions whenver a top spy was captured.

As soon as someone is removed from the context of the battlefield, the rights attributed to that person change. The reasons are called "Geneva Conventions." If you want to kill someone, you do it on the battlefield. Once they're in your custody, they have a different set of rights that MUST be abided by. If these rights are abridged, then we're no better than the terrorists. Terrorists abridge these rights for citizens by killing (life), kidnapping (liberty), and bombing (pursuit of happiness/property). Like you said in your post above, if our intelligence agencies can interrogate within the bounds of Geneva, then go for it. However, why would they hide them if they were abiding by the Conventions? That doesn't stand up to inspection.

I'm not old enough to recall what was done with Soviet spies, but I would argue the same case for them.

Right on CW! See ... I knew that eventually we'd be arguing the same side!

Look, I understand we need to get these guys in a bad way. If you storm into the terrorist's lair and they resist, shoot to kill. Call in air strikes. Whatever. But once you capture them alive, there are rules to follow. Lawful interrogation can yield good information too. Torture and "torture light" methods often yield misinformation ... it's been shown that torture isn't all that reliable of a method to extract information.

Plus, who wants to stoop to the terrorist's level? It's certainly no moral high ground, that's for sure... Furthermore, think of the long-term effects on our own troops. If the world's sole superpower can stoop to disappearing people, torture, murdering people in custody, ignoring international laws and treaties, why would any other nation not follow suit? What happens in future conflicts when our troops are captured?

We're supposed to be setting an example here people.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

As soon as someone is removed from the context of the battlefield, the rights attributed to that person change. The reasons are called "Geneva Conventions." If you want to kill someone, you do it on the battlefield. Once they're in your custody, they have a different set of rights that MUST be abided by. If these rights are abridged, then we're no better than the terrorists. Terrorists abridge these rights for citizens by killing (life), kidnapping (liberty), and bombing (pursuit of happiness/property). Like you said in your post above, if our intelligence agencies can interrogate within the bounds of Geneva, then go for it. However, why would they hide them if they were abiding by the Conventions? That doesn't stand up to inspection.

Exactly. :thumbsup:

 

[alchemize]

Right on CW! See ... I knew that eventually we'd be arguing the same side!

A thousand monkeys typing shakespear blah blah

Look, I understand we need to get these guys in a bad way. If you storm into the terrorist's lair and they resist, shoot to kill. Call in air strikes. Whatever. But once you capture them alive, there are rules to follow. Lawful interrogation can yield good information too. Torture and "torture light" methods often yield misinformation ... it's been shown that torture isn't all that reliable of a method to extract information.

I'd like to see your source on that. It's been shown that heavy-duty torture is ineffective. But "torture-light" as you call it, from what I've read, *has* been proven to be effective.

Plus, who wants to stoop to the terrorist's level?

Frankly, I don't see inducing "truth serums", sleep depravation, and aggressive interrogation as stooping to their level. I fully subscribe to checks and balances in that system. US Citizens should be exempt, as they are covered under the constitution.

It's certainly no moral high ground, that's for sure...

I would say that not beheading them, not parading them across the TV demanding things, not torturing them in the sadistic sense, etc., is taking the moral high ground. But where is there a moral high ground in war? We are killing them, they are killing us. It's war.

Furthermore, think of the long-term effects on our own troops. If the world's sole superpower can stoop to disappearing people, torture, murdering people in custody, ignoring international laws and treaties, why would any other nation not follow suit?

What you fail to realize is that evey other nation already does this, as has the US, for the entire 20th and 21st centuries. Again, look up some stuff on France, UK, Russia's intelligence services.

What happens in future conflicts when our troops are captured?

What already happens to them?

We're supposed to be setting an example here people.

An example that we are unwilling to do what it takes to win? We can set an example by being fair, by being principled, by being absolutely certain before we apply aggressive interrogation to a known and senior terrorist. What everyone likes to call "torture".

We are in an unconventional war here. During WW2 we did lots of nasty things. But we still maintained a higher ground than our enemies. But we did what it took to win.

I think this represents a fundamental difference between the left and right viewpoint on how to fight the war on terror. Liberals believe that by setting a good example, we can win. After 8 years of "setting the right example", we can obviously see that didn't work. I'm ready for the right's version - kill or capture all the terrorists, end all governments that support them.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The Geneva convention was originally designed to account for warfare between the western style nations.

The terrorists do not fall under a nation. They have demonstrated that they do not abide by the laws/rules of "civilized" warfare, therefore the laws of justice need to be adapted to the rules that they wish to abide by.

 

[sumrtym]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The terrorists do not fall under a nation. They have demonstrated that they do not abide by the laws/rules of "civilized" warfare, therefore the laws of justice need to be adapted to the rules that they wish to abide by.

That's awfully convenient. They probably say the same thing about us.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: alchemize
What are you talking about? When they are a target on the ground, they aren't people? That's silly.

See my statement below on soviet spies versus terrorists. No difference. I don't recall anyone howling about the geneva conventions whenver a top spy was captured.

As soon as someone is removed from the context of the battlefield, the rights attributed to that person change. The reasons are called "Geneva Conventions." If you want to kill someone, you do it on the battlefield. Once they're in your custody, they have a different set of rights that MUST be abided by. If these rights are abridged, then we're no better than the terrorists. Terrorists abridge these rights for citizens by killing (life), kidnapping (liberty), and bombing (pursuit of happiness/property). Like you said in your post above, if our intelligence agencies can interrogate within the bounds of Geneva, then go for it. However, why would they hide them if they were abiding by the Conventions? That doesn't stand up to inspection.

I'm not old enough to recall what was done with Soviet spies, but I would argue the same case for them.

This is, quite possibly the best post you have ever written on these forums.

As much as it scares me i cannot help but agree with you on this issue.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The Geneva convention was originally designed to account for warfare between the western style nations.

The terrorists do not fall under a nation. They have demonstrated that they do not abide by the laws/rules of "civilized" warfare, therefore the laws of justice need to be adapted to the rules that they wish to abide by.

That is BS, if you are as bad as the terrorists, then who makes the definiton of right and wrong?

The very purpose of this war is to hold heads high, if you are willing to grovel down in the dirt at the same level as they are, you are not eliminating them, you are creating more of them.

A soldier should abide by three rules, what are your orders, what is right and what keeps you alive.

 

[maddogchen]

Hmmm.... I swear we've gone over this before....back in July

And back then they said

``We can't say if these undisclosed detentions constitute a breach of the Geneva Convention, since we don't know if they were arrested as part of an international armed conflict,'' Notari said. ``Some may, some may not.'' The Geneva Convention only provides the Red Cross with automatic access to prisoners of wars.

So I'm not sure if what they are doing is exactly illegal. Its sort of like a loophole. I feel that this is wrong but at the same time I think if the gov secretly kidnapped a top ranked al-qaida operative without their knowledge would you want this knowledge to be given to the public and Red Cross while you are still in the process of interrogating him? Because once they know that they now have a leak they'll change and seal the security leaks/codes whatever.