How should we handle the prisoners being held?

[Wheezer]

Can anyone you give some reccomendations as to how these things sould be handled?

I hear a lot of "We should be the bigger people and not stoop to thier level" statements, but I have yet to hear alternative, instead of telling us what we should not be doing, give ideas of what we should do.

Seriously come up with alternatives to this alleged torture that is going on.

....and no, "they should not be there in the first place" is not an answer.


The fact is they are there, agree with it or not. So stay on topic an come up with alternative solutions.

 

[Rainsford]

Well...in order to come up with "alternative solutions", it is important that we agree on what problems these solutions are meant to solve. You want alternatives to torture, but I'm still unclear as to what problem torture is solving. Are we simply trying to prevent alleged terrorists from hurting US soldiers or civilians? Are we trying to obtain information to prevent future terrorist attacks by others? Are we punishing them for their actions? Each of these requires a different set of arguments, since each has different solutions.

And this is the problem, the whole debate is going on without any solid idea of what exactly we're trying to accomplish here. Arguments range from "do you want another 9/11?" to "they are subhuman killers who deserve it" to "are we just supposed to let them go". This is not helpful, and it's not how we look at problems. We're putting the cart before the horse, as they say. You don't debate whether or not a solution is good, you figure out what the problem is THEN figure out a good way to solve it.

I'd be happy to propose alternatives, as long as I know what problem I'm trying to solve here.

 

[yllus]

1. Charge them now, or immediately let them go. If they're currently providing intel, explain the situation to the military court - should work out fine.
2. Before you let anyone go, implant them with a GPS tracker chip in their sleep.
3. ???
4. Profit!

Should satisfy pretty much everyone, no?

 

[maluckey]

A few ideas,

The problem to me seems that SOME of the detainees are violent scum and a threat to society. Now, they are pissed off scum and more of a danger to society.

We should give each detainee a rating as to how much future mayhem they are likely to cause, and release the least dangerous at once. The most dangerous could be charged and tried under the UCMJ, and the rest of them can then be returned to their countries to face the local justice system. This saves taxpayer money (always good) and some face in the international community (for whatever that?s worth).

 

[StormRider]

Too bad there's no such thing as a holodeck. For those that could provide intel, we could create a holodeck program where bin Laden's version of Islam wins in the end and created a Taliban like society in every country. The prisoner could be made up to look older and when he wakes up he finds:

Ahmed: Thank goodness you woke up from your coma! We were worried the vile Americans placed you in a pernament coma!

Terrorist: Where am I?

Ahmed: You are in the Islamic Republic of America! We won the war! Everybody has converted to Islam and those that didn't are taxed humanely.

Terrorist: Really? Wow. What year is it?

Ahmed: 2026. So, what happened to you? Your brother was worried when you were captured in Afghanistan.

Terrorist: Yes, yes, now I remember. I was going to meet Kamil to retrieve plans from the Sheik himself for another 9/11 attack. How is the Sheik?

Ahmed: He died about 5 years ago. He died peacefully of old age. Who were you going to give the plans to?

Terrorist: I was supposed to go to Germany to meet someone named Adul Khan. In the mosque near Hamburg.

Ahmed: What time were you supposed to meet him?

Terrorist: At 6:30pm.

Ahmed: Thanks....sucker!

At this point, the holodeck programs ends and the terrorist utters, "D'oh!"

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: StormRider
Too bad there's no such thing as a holodeck. For those that could provide intel, we could create a holodeck program where bin Laden's version of Islam wins in the end and created a Taliban like society in every country. The prisoner could be made up to look older and when he wakes up he finds:

Ahmed: Thank goodness you woke up from your coma! We were worried the vile Americans placed you in a pernament coma!

Terrorist: Where am I?

Ahmed: You are in the Islamic Republic of America! We won the war! Everybody has converted to Islam and those that didn't are taxed humanely.

Terrorist: Really? Wow. What year is it?

Ahmed: 2026. So, what happened to you? Your brother was worried when you were captured in Afghanistan.

Terrorist: Yes, yes, now I remember. I was going to meet Kamil to retrieve plans from the Sheik himself for another 9/11 attack. How is the Sheik?

Ahmed: He died about 5 years ago. He died peacefully of old age. Who were you going to give the plans to?

Terrorist: I was supposed to go to Germany to meet someone named Adul Khan. In the mosque near Hamburg.

Ahmed: What time were you supposed to meet him?

Terrorist: At 6:30pm.

Ahmed: Thanks....sucker!

At this point, the holodeck programs ends and the terrorist utters, "D'oh!"

:thumbsup::laugh:

 

[piasabird]

If they were not wearing uniforms they must be spies. So just shoot them.

All these people they have now were caught bearing arms against the US without a uniform. They are either terroists or murderers. Take your pick. Just haul them into the center of town and shoot them in the head. All the Iraq combatants are still in Iraq; these guys were from afganistan.

 

[tommywishbone]

The answer is simple and we've done it for years; Charge them with a crime and prosecute them or release them. How hard is that? If they are POW's, put them in a POW camp. If they have commited a federal or state crime, prosecute them and let a judge and jury handle it. Simple.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Well...in order to come up with "alternative solutions", it is important that we agree on what problems these solutions are meant to solve. You want alternatives to torture, but I'm still unclear as to what problem torture is solving. Are we simply trying to prevent alleged terrorists from hurting US soldiers or civilians? Are we trying to obtain information to prevent future terrorist attacks by others? Are we punishing them for their actions? Each of these requires a different set of arguments, since each has different solutions.

And this is the problem, the whole debate is going on without any solid idea of what exactly we're trying to accomplish here. Arguments range from "do you want another 9/11?" to "they are subhuman killers who deserve it" to "are we just supposed to let them go". This is not helpful, and it's not how we look at problems. We're putting the cart before the horse, as they say. You don't debate whether or not a solution is good, you figure out what the problem is THEN figure out a good way to solve it.

I'd be happy to propose alternatives, as long as I know what problem I'm trying to solve here.

I agree with you to some degree, however how do you know that some attacks have not already been prevented either here or in other countries by our methods of interrogation?

The fact is you don't, and there is good reason for that...the terrorist who plan and execute these attacks do not "telelgraph thier punches" so to speak, there is a reason for that...and we do not broadcast the fact that we have gathered intel about these attacks or where we got it.

Now has anyone thought that possibly our success rate is much higher than what you percieve it to be because of what may or may not be going on in this prison?

Following that theory, is it possible that it is so succesful that there are those that wish it to cease so they play the torture card to stop our questioning of these prisoners?

None of us on this board are CIA or FBI...if you are wtf are you doing surfing here shouldn't you be doing something more productive?

So really why should we be privilage to information as to what is and is not successful.

The fact you are a taxpayer is not relevant...no matter where you live you will be taxed and not privilage to confidential information in any country.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
The answer is simple and we've done it for years; Charge them with a crime and prosecute them or release them. How hard is that? If they are POW's, put them in a POW camp. If they have commited a federal or state crime, prosecute them and let a judge and jury handle it. Simple.

Sounds reasonable. although I do think that most of them should be held until such time that they can be sent back to Iraq and tried there. We should definitly not be hiding everything. It just makes it look worse then it probably is.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Well...in order to come up with "alternative solutions", it is important that we agree on what problems these solutions are meant to solve. You want alternatives to torture, but I'm still unclear as to what problem torture is solving. Are we simply trying to prevent alleged terrorists from hurting US soldiers or civilians? Are we trying to obtain information to prevent future terrorist attacks by others? Are we punishing them for their actions? Each of these requires a different set of arguments, since each has different solutions.

And this is the problem, the whole debate is going on without any solid idea of what exactly we're trying to accomplish here. Arguments range from "do you want another 9/11?" to "they are subhuman killers who deserve it" to "are we just supposed to let them go". This is not helpful, and it's not how we look at problems. We're putting the cart before the horse, as they say. You don't debate whether or not a solution is good, you figure out what the problem is THEN figure out a good way to solve it.

I'd be happy to propose alternatives, as long as I know what problem I'm trying to solve here.

I agree with you to some degree, however how do you know that some attacks have not already been prevented either here or in other countries by our methods of interrogation?

The fact is you don't, and there is good reason for that...the terrorist who plan and execute these attacks do not "telelgraph thier punches" so to speak, there is a reason for that...and we do not broadcast the fact that we have gathered intel about these attacks or where we got it.

Now has anyone thought that possibly our success rate is much higher than what you percieve it to be because of what may or may not be going on in this prison?

Following that theory, is it possible that it is so succesful that there are those that wish it to cease so they play the torture card to stop our questioning of these prisoners?

None of us on this board are CIA or FBI...if you are wtf are you doing surfing here shouldn't you be doing something more productive?

So really why should we be privilage to information as to what is and is not successful.

The fact you are a taxpayer is not relevant...no matter where you live you will be taxed and not privilage to confidential information in any country.

Hold your horses there, I think you missed my point. I am not saying we have or haven't got information that has prevented other attacks, and I'm certainly not suggesting the government should reveal classified information.

All I was saying is that in order to really debate the issue, we need to have a framework to work in. Is the treatment done to extract information? If that is the starting point we want to argue from, that's fine. We don't need to know what information (if any) has been extracted to propose alternative interrogation methods. If that's not why people support torture, the argument would be different. See what I'm talking about? We really need to determine what problem we're trying to solve before we say whether our approach is good or not. That doesn't require revealing any sensitive information.

By the way, I would assume CIA employees aren't supposed to go around broadcasting who they work for on internet message boards...so we don't really know who is or isn't in intelligence, do we? In any case, it's Saturday, I'm sure even spies get days off

 

[Jhhnn]

What's to debate? We are a nation of laws, based on long held beliefs and principles, enshrined in the Constitution, further bolstered by participation in international agreements.

All the prisoners should be prosecuted forthwith, either under domestic law or the provisions of the UCMJ, or released to their native countries. I doubt the govt could make a case against any of them- otherwise, we'd have already had full scale tribunals.

Besides that, no terrorist organization would touch them with a pole at this point, and they simply lack the means to do us any harm outside of such a framework.

They're being held simply to maintain the notion that the Admin is "doing something" about terrorists... for all we know for sure, they could simply have been picked at random from the Afghan and beloved patriot countryside. Unless, of course, one is predisposed to believe the Admin in such matters, a realm where their track record as to the truth is more than a little shady...

Seen Sasquatch? Aliens? Faeries? About the same as "OMFG Terrarists!"

 

[orion23]

Our own media is going to destroy us all.
We are fed too much, which we don't even need to know

So what did we gain from publicly humiliating a president (Clinton). That paid wh0r3 wan in it from the beggining and maid a lot of money afterwards. in other countries she would have been found hanging from a tree for talking about it.

What about the prison pictures from IRAK, we just got many soldiers and civilians decapitated for publishing those pictures.

And the tortures, well, how do you want them to do it? "Excuse me sir, if you don't mind, or if you have the time, could you tell me what your next target is?

We don't need to know so much, some things are supposed to remain a secret!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: orion23
Our own media is going to destroy us all.
We are fed too much, which we don't even need to know

So what did we gain from publicly humiliating a president (Clinton). That paid wh0r3 wan in it from the beggining and maid a lot of money afterwards. in other countries she would have been found hanging from a tree for talking about it.

What about the prison pictures from IRAK, we just got many soldiers and civilians decapitated for publishing those pictures.

And the tortures, well, how do you want them to do it? "Excuse me sir, if you don't mind, or if you have the time, could you tell me what your next target is?

We don't need to know so much, some things are supposed to remain a secret!

You couldn't be more wrong. Secrecy is how governments maintain their power, openeness is how people maintain theirs. It's a trade-off of course, everyone must have some secrets. But the idea that we'd be better off if we were just kept more in the dark is basically standing on Darwin's doormat, pounding on the door screaming "take me, take me!".

Look at your own examples. Clinton screwing around...do we really want to encourage that kind of behavior in our elected officials? It's not that him having extra-marital sex was damaging, per se, but I'd rather not have a leader with such an obvious character defect. And if we DO have one, I'd damn sure like to know about it. In this country, he works for all of us, and that means we hold him accountable.

Or how about prison pictures. What is worse, the blowback from publishing those pictures, or allowing that behavior to continue? Can we trust the government to hold itself accountable in the absense of an informed population? Maybe you trust them enough for that, I don't. Blame the media for the aftermath of the pictures, but you might as well blame the system that allowed those pictures to happen in the first place. The media didn't do that, did it?

As for torture, I suggest you do some research. There are lots of ways to interrogate a person with information you want that they don't want to give you. Many of them are more morally acceptable AND more effective. If you think torture is effective for security purposes, I suggest you brush up on your world affairs and history. The most oppressive regimes in the world, all through history and now, are not any safer despite their willingness to imprison people on flimsy pretext and torture them for information. In fact, many of them are much less safe than open countries such as the US.

The government is not your mommy or your daddy, at least not in this country. You are (I assume) an adult of some kind, and it's YOUR government as much as it is THEIR government. Yes, secrets are necessary, but things like this need to be in the open. Otherwise we really don't know what's going on, and if that doesn't scare the sh!t out of you, you are far too trusting.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
What's to debate? We are a nation of laws, based on long held beliefs and principles, enshrined in the Constitution, further bolstered by participation in international agreements.

All the prisoners should be prosecuted forthwith, either under domestic law or the provisions of the UCMJ, or released to their native countries. I doubt the govt could make a case against any of them- otherwise, we'd have already had full scale tribunals.

Besides that, no terrorist organization would touch them with a pole at this point, and they simply lack the means to do us any harm outside of such a framework.

They're being held simply to maintain the notion that the Admin is "doing something" about terrorists... for all we know for sure, they could simply have been picked at random from the Afghan and beloved patriot countryside. Unless, of course, one is predisposed to believe the Admin in such matters, a realm where their track record as to the truth is more than a little shady...

Seen Sasquatch? Aliens? Faeries? About the same as "OMFG Terrarists!"

Good points, I'm just trying to find out why some people support torture. All I see are arguments that make no sense ("well maybe you think we should just let them all go"). I have yet to see anyone state it in terms of there being a problem we're trying to solve, and torture being the best method of solving it. Before we have that, arguing why torture ISN'T a good solution makes no sense.

 

[martinez]

Originally posted by: orion23
Our own media is going to destroy us all.
We are fed too much, which we don't even need to know

So what did we gain from publicly humiliating a president (Clinton). That paid wh0r3 wan in it from the beggining and maid a lot of money afterwards. in other countries she would have been found hanging from a tree for talking about it.

What about the prison pictures from IRAK, we just got many soldiers and civilians decapitated for publishing those pictures.

And the tortures, well, how do you want them to do it? "Excuse me sir, if you don't mind, or if you have the time, could you tell me what your next target is?

We don't need to know so much, some things are supposed to remain a secret!

I would like more of the truth not less. I would like it alot less sensationalized too.

Just the facts maam. A pipedream I know. But you can't seriously believe less information and more secrets is a good thing?

 

[Rainsford]

By the way, here is an answer to the question posed by this thread.

Give the prisoners a hearing or trial of some kind, enough to determine if they really belong there or not. We certainly don't want to waste resources holding people we don't need to, and we'd look a lot better. Although it sounds like we are doing this, the fact that it is some military pseudo court is probably not going to do it. It's a good step though.

Secondly, those that have information we want, interrogate them in a manner that we'd use on any other federal prisoner. I am not convinced that mistreating or torturing them is a more effective tactic, "24" and "Threat Matrix" to the contrary. Certainly no one on here has made that argument effectivly, it all amounts to it being "obvious". Plus we'd again look a lot better to the rest of the world, and although some of you don't care about that, I'm all for it if we can convince some 16 year old Iraqi that we aren't the bad guys and he doesn't need to blow himself up in a market.

There, that's not so hard. And it's win-win for us.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
By the way, here is an answer to the question posed by this thread.

Give the prisoners a hearing or trial of some kind, enough to determine if they really belong there or not. We certainly don't want to waste resources holding people we don't need to, and we'd look a lot better. Although it sounds like we are doing this, the fact that it is some military pseudo court is probably not going to do it. It's a good step though.

Secondly, those that have information we want, interrogate them in a manner that we'd use on any other federal prisoner. I am not convinced that mistreating or torturing them is a more effective tactic, "24" and "Threat Matrix" to the contrary. Certainly no one on here has made that argument effectivly, it all amounts to it being "obvious". Plus we'd again look a lot better to the rest of the world, and although some of you don't care about that, I'm all for it if we can convince some 16 year old Iraqi that we aren't the bad guys and he doesn't need to blow himself up in a market.

There, that's not so hard. And it's win-win for us.

That is probably the most intelligent answer to the question yet.....thank you.

The real problem is however no matter what we do, no matter how this gets handled, there will always be people who object to the use of ANY prisoner discomfort in order to get information (I cite the whole urinating on the Koran scandal) even IF such a thing was done intentinally so what? I go back to fundamental extreme Christians who basically are no different then thier Muslim counterparts....

If it was known the FBI had someone in custody that KNEW when an abortion bombing or the destruction of a Planned Parenthood building was to take place and it had the potential to take anyones life and taking a whiz on the Bible got that info....go for it because the Bible they are reading and using to justify thier actions is not the same one I or others I know believe in....

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Rainsford
By the way, here is an answer to the question posed by this thread.

Give the prisoners a hearing or trial of some kind, enough to determine if they really belong there or not. We certainly don't want to waste resources holding people we don't need to, and we'd look a lot better. Although it sounds like we are doing this, the fact that it is some military pseudo court is probably not going to do it. It's a good step though.

Secondly, those that have information we want, interrogate them in a manner that we'd use on any other federal prisoner. I am not convinced that mistreating or torturing them is a more effective tactic, "24" and "Threat Matrix" to the contrary. Certainly no one on here has made that argument effectivly, it all amounts to it being "obvious". Plus we'd again look a lot better to the rest of the world, and although some of you don't care about that, I'm all for it if we can convince some 16 year old Iraqi that we aren't the bad guys and he doesn't need to blow himself up in a market.

There, that's not so hard. And it's win-win for us.

That is probably the most intelligent answer to the question yet.....thank you.

The real problem is however no matter what we do, no matter how this gets handled, there will always be people who object to the use of ANY prisoner discomfort in order to get information (I cite the whole urinating on the Koran scandal) even IF such a thing was done intentinally so what? I go back to fundamental extreme Christians who basically are no different then thier Muslim counterparts....

If it was known the FBI had someone in custody that KNEW when an abortion bombing or the destruction of a Planned Parenthood building was to take place and it had the potential to take anyones life and taking a whiz on the Bible got that info....go for it because the Bible they are reading and using to justify thier actions is not the same one I or others I know believe in....

Well, you're right about not being able to make everyone happy. Part of the problem is that some people truly do have other motives, they want to hurt the US or push some other cause of theirs. Those people are impossible to make happy while reaching our goals. It's hard enough just to make people happy when they agree on the same broad strokes. I doubt we're going to solve that problem, so we should just give it out best shot. And we should try and remain fixed on the goal, not getting bogged down in arguments over details that quickly take on a life of their own. Look how quickly the whole torture issue has turned into a "pro war on terror" vs "anti war on terror" battle. The big picture is getting polarized around one issue, without any boarder perspective.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Well...in order to come up with "alternative solutions", it is important that we agree on what problems these solutions are meant to solve. You want alternatives to torture, but I'm still unclear as to what problem torture is solving. Are we simply trying to prevent alleged terrorists from hurting US soldiers or civilians? Are we trying to obtain information to prevent future terrorist attacks by others? Are we punishing them for their actions? Each of these requires a different set of arguments, since each has different solutions.

And this is the problem, the whole debate is going on without any solid idea of what exactly we're trying to accomplish here. Arguments range from "do you want another 9/11?" to "they are subhuman killers who deserve it" to "are we just supposed to let them go". This is not helpful, and it's not how we look at problems. We're putting the cart before the horse, as they say. You don't debate whether or not a solution is good, you figure out what the problem is THEN figure out a good way to solve it.

I'd be happy to propose alternatives, as long as I know what problem I'm trying to solve here.

I agree with you to some degree, however how do you know that some attacks have not already been prevented either here or in other countries by our methods of interrogation?

The fact is you don't, and there is good reason for that...the terrorist who plan and execute these attacks do not "telelgraph thier punches" so to speak, there is a reason for that...and we do not broadcast the fact that we have gathered intel about these attacks or where we got it.

Now has anyone thought that possibly our success rate is much higher than what you percieve it to be because of what may or may not be going on in this prison?

Following that theory, is it possible that it is so succesful that there are those that wish it to cease so they play the torture card to stop our questioning of these prisoners?

None of us on this board are CIA or FBI...if you are wtf are you doing surfing here shouldn't you be doing something more productive?

So really why should we be privilage to information as to what is and is not successful.

The fact you are a taxpayer is not relevant...no matter where you live you will be taxed and not privilage to confidential information in any country.

Can you tell us all here where you would draw a few lines? Let's say that you're correct...some attacks have been prevented. Now let's expand on that and draw a few lines, shall we?
[*] Line #1 - How many deaths have to be saved to justify using torture? 1? 10? 100? Your call.
[*] Line #2 - Where would you draw the line as to what constitutes justifiable torture? Beatings? Cutting off a finger? A hand?
[*] Line #3 - Now put them together. Let's say that the only way to get info out of a terrorist attack on 3,000 people is to rape a prisoner's 10-year-old daughter in front of him. That way those 3,000 lives would be saved. Would that be justifiable torture? Would that be torture at all?(IOW - does the # of lives saved affect the level of justified torture used?)

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
If it was known the FBI had someone in custody that KNEW when an abortion bombing or the destruction of a Planned Parenthood building was to take place and it had the potential to take anyones life and taking a whiz on the Bible got that info....go for it because the Bible they are reading and using to justify thier actions is not the same one I or others I know believe in....

So how do you know the information he is giving you is correct?

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. "A hearing or a trial of some kind"- why? We already have two avenues, either thru the civilian courts or the UCMJ. They've served us well from the beginning. Why create some grey area wherein the Admin can do whatever they want, as is the current situation? Why endorse tyranny in the service of an allegedly good cause? Can't figure out why we're hated? It's precisely that kind of hypocritical thinking that gets us in trouble.

We need to remember that in this whole ongoing effort against terrorism that there's really no end in sight, ever. Which means that the idea that the means justify the ends won't serve us- there are no ends, only means.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Can anyone you give some reccomendations as to how these things sould be handled?

I hear a lot of "We should be the bigger people and not stoop to thier level" statements, but I have yet to hear alternative, instead of telling us what we should not be doing, give ideas of what we should do.

Seriously come up with alternatives to this alleged torture that is going on.

....and no, "they should not be there in the first place" is not an answer.


The fact is they are there, agree with it or not. So stay on topic an come up with alternative solutions.

I suppose we might start with not chaining them to the floor naked and forcing them to lie in their own waste for days. Of course that information comes from the FBI so you might take it with a grain of salt. :disgust:

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. "A hearing or a trial of some kind"- why? We already have two avenues, either thru the civilian courts or the UCMJ. They've served us well from the beginning. Why create some grey area wherein the Admin can do whatever they want, as is the current situation? Why endorse tyranny in the service of an allegedly good cause? Can't figure out why we're hated? It's precisely that kind of hypocritical thinking that gets us in trouble.

We need to remember that in this whole ongoing effort against terrorism that there's really no end in sight, ever. Which means that the idea that the means justify the ends won't serve us- there are no ends, only means.

good post

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
We need to remember that in this whole ongoing effort against terrorism that there's really no end in sight, ever. Which means that the idea that the means justify the ends won't serve us- there are no ends, only means.

How delightfuly Orwellian.