New jail abuse allegations hit US

[Czar]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Aelius
If you think that "any" of this type of interrogation is a means to an end that is justifiable because it might save lives then you just pissed away the whole concept of being the "good guy". Everything that your family has every fought for and died for is over and they have won.

You lost.

Not any type of interrogation is justified,

Those that will break a person's will and without destroying the body is valid.

Many feel that one should not subject a person to any type of hardship, let them volunteer information.
That does not work.

mental damage is waaaaay more serious than physical damage, you can live with physical damage, you can fix physical damage but mental damage is on a totaly different level

the reason physical torture is looked at so seriously is mostly because of the mental damage the person goes through because of the physical damage

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Czar
The US should be and is held to the same standard as the rest of the western world not third world dictatorships like some people like to do.

Some of the Western world wants to hold us to a higher standard than they want for themselves.
The same goes with the 2nd and 3rd world.

In otherwords, the attitude is "Do as I say, not as I do. But do not critize me for what I do."

does it make them right or does it make the US right?

got examples?

Neither is right. The overall intention of the US has been to help those that asked for it.
Isolationism has not worked and the nature of America and certain other nations is to provide assistance because it is felt to be the right thing to do; damm the consequences.
Problem occurs when an issue/incident becomes convoluted or twisted for political gains.

One example is the oil-food program and the arms smuggling that went on with respect to Iraq.

Another is where the US was trading arms for Oil with respect to Central America.

Both times, the ends justifying the means excuse was used to get around the restrictions.

Neither is valid.

 

[AlricTheMad]

Seems to me this kind of activity is what we removed Sadam Hussain from power for. We are signatories to the Geneva Convention. We (the Administration) claims to be better.

Guess we better act it.

Pat

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Not surprising at all, stuff like this will alawys happen.

The US should be and is held to the same standard as the rest of the western world not third world dictatorships like some people like to do.

I agree with that! However we need to be consistent and apply the same standards to all of the western world and the UN.

totaly agree, though the UN is way more complex than indevidual countries.... since it isnt a country and involves just about every country in the world

It definitely is complex, but complexity is not an excuse to ignore these problems.

It would be very interesting to see what people say about the US troops in Iraqi prisons and about the UN scandals. I would imagine that it would be pretty funny to see such inconsistent behavior. Maybe I was involved in it, too.

its not an excuse or anything close, its how we can solve the problem
Both abuses done under the UN and the US flag are extremely serious in my opinion. How they can be solved perminently so they wont happen again is the difference.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Czar
its not an excuse or anything close, its how we can solve the problem
Both abuses done under the UN and the US flag are extremely serious in my opinion. How they can be solved perminently so they wont happen again is the difference.

Absolute accountability all the way to the top.

"The buck stops here" needs to be accepted and understood.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Aelius
If you think that "any" of this type of interrogation is a means to an end that is justifiable because it might save lives then you just pissed away the whole concept of being the "good guy". Everything that your family has every fought for and died for is over and they have won.

You lost.

Not any type of interrogation is justified,

Those that will break a person's will and without destroying the body is valid.

Many feel that one should not subject a person to any type of hardship, let them volunteer information.
That does not work.

And you suggest feeding a person pork product will break someone's will?

And do you think this is better than not destroying the body:

Marked "sensitive but unclassified"
Dated 2 August 2004
Name of sender blanked out

The writer claims to have witnessed abuses at Guantanamo Bay, including seeing an inmate chained hand a foot in a foetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water. They often urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left for over 24 hours.

On one occasion a detainee appeared to have pulled his hair out after having to spend the night in a room without ventilation or air conditioning

 

[Proletariat]

Absolute accountability all the way to the top.

"The buck stops here" needs to be accepted and understood.

I hope you are willing to extend the same philosophy to the Bush administration soldier.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: AlricTheMad
Seems to me this kind of activity is what we removed Sadam Hussain from power for. We are signatories to the Geneva Convention. We (the Administration) claims to be better.

Guess we better act it.

Pat

The insurgents in Iraq are in no way protected by the Geneva Convention.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Czar
its not an excuse or anything close, its how we can solve the problem
Both abuses done under the UN and the US flag are extremely serious in my opinion. How they can be solved perminently so they wont happen again is the difference.

Absolute accountability all the way to the top.

"The buck stops here" needs to be accepted and understood.

The thing is about the UN is that for army operations are run by member countries and the respective armies are only fully responsible to the member country providing them. Thats because the has no real athority over any member country. The countries set the laws and the countries are responsible for following them, this is a flaw on the grand scale of things but sadly there is no other way to go about doing it.

Do you say than that Bush should resign for the abuse scandals in iraq?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: K1052


The insurgents in Iraq are in no way protected by the Geneva Convention.

No of course not they are space aliens.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: AlricTheMad
Seems to me this kind of activity is what we removed Sadam Hussain from power for. We are signatories to the Geneva Convention. We (the Administration) claims to be better.

Guess we better act it.

Pat

The insurgents in Iraq are in no way protected by the Geneva Convention.

they are, they are they for the most part are legiment resistance to an occupational power

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Sultan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4113679.stm

Fresh allegations ......

Wake me up when these particular "allegations" are ruled "factual". Meanwhile, please make sure to watch your dial for Al Jazeera's ("We report, you decapitate") next "Beheading of the Week" show by some Islamofacist whackjob.

Ta ta.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Sultan
And you suggest feeding a person pork product will break someone's will?

And do you think this is better than not destroying the body:

Marked "sensitive but unclassified"
Dated 2 August 2004
Name of sender blanked out

The writer claims to have witnessed abuses at Guantanamo Bay, including seeing an inmate chained hand a foot in a foetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water. They often urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left for over 24 hours.

On one occasion a detainee appeared to have pulled his hair out after having to spend the night in a room without ventilation or air conditioning

Either method that gets results is acceptable.
Humilitation and deprevation will work.

I would belive that a room would have ventilation. Circulation is another story.
Air must be able to get in and out.
A/C may be considered a luxury.

Used to be called a sweatbox or a hole in the ground. Except then, insects, reptiles and animals were allowed to visit. The bolded comment seems to be a much nicer situation.

With respect to pork, why not have a pig placed in the cell with the prisoner.
Or wrap them up in a skin.
Either way, if their beliefs in being unclean are strong enough, they should be willing to provide information in order to be removed from that situation.

The whole intention of interrogration is to generate incentives for information needed to be obtained that was not initially voluntarily provided

 

[RealityTime]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Sultan
And you suggest feeding a person pork product will break someone's will?

And do you think this is better than not destroying the body:

Marked "sensitive but unclassified"
Dated 2 August 2004
Name of sender blanked out

The writer claims to have witnessed abuses at Guantanamo Bay, including seeing an inmate chained hand a foot in a foetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water. They often urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left for over 24 hours.

On one occasion a detainee appeared to have pulled his hair out after having to spend the night in a room without ventilation or air conditioning

Either method that gets results is acceptable.
Humilitation and deprevation will work.

I would belive that a room would have ventilation. Circulation is another story.
Air must be able to get in and out.
A/C may be considered a luxury.

Used to be called a sweatbox or a hole in the ground. Except then, insects, reptiles and animals were allowed to visit. The bolded comment seems to be a much nicer situation.

With respect to pork, why not have a pig placed in the cell with the prisoner.
Or wrap them up in a skin.
Either way, if their beliefs in being unclean are strong enough, they should be willing to provide information in order to be removed from that situation.

The whole intention of interrogration is to generate incentives for information needed to be obtained that was not initially voluntarily provided

Perhaps when this administration is through with exercising their sickness, they will have a position for you manning the ovens ? :shocked:

 

[Proletariat]

These arguments will never be solved, they will most likely be fought with weapons instead of words on the streets of America cities and suburban centers. Two very different world views here. Adhere to the UN/do whatever the hell we want. I want to get my own news from good, trusted sources like BBC/I want to watch FoxNews all the time because it's there and it tells me what I want to hear. It's pretty much the old "I will not be brainwashed" vs. "I love being brainwashed" thing.

Be prepared to fight the rednecks blue states!! We have lobbied for no guns while these guys have tons of them and from what I've seen from their attitudes they are very, very dishonorable like the old confederate south.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: AlricTheMad
Seems to me this kind of activity is what we removed Sadam Hussain from power for. We are signatories to the Geneva Convention. We (the Administration) claims to be better.

Guess we better act it.

Pat

The insurgents in Iraq are in no way protected by the Geneva Convention.

they are, they are they for the most part are legiment resistance to an occupational power

Not when many of them are carrying foreign passports and can be verified as foreign citizens. They do not qualify as combatants under the Convention.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: AlricTheMad
Seems to me this kind of activity is what we removed Sadam Hussain from power for. We are signatories to the Geneva Convention. We (the Administration) claims to be better.

Guess we better act it.

Pat

The insurgents in Iraq are in no way protected by the Geneva Convention.

they are, they are they for the most part are legiment resistance to an occupational power

Not when many of them are carrying foreign passports and can be verified as foreign citizens. They do not qualify as combatants under the Convention.

most of them are iraqis and therefore covered

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Czar
its not an excuse or anything close, its how we can solve the problem
Both abuses done under the UN and the US flag are extremely serious in my opinion. How they can be solved perminently so they wont happen again is the difference.

Absolute accountability all the way to the top.

"The buck stops here" needs to be accepted and understood.

The thing is about the UN is that for army operations are run by member countries and the respective armies are only fully responsible to the member country providing them. Thats because the has no real athority over any member country. The countries set the laws and the countries are responsible for following them, this is a flaw on the grand scale of things but sadly there is no other way to go about doing it.

Do you say than that Bush should resign for the abuse scandals in iraq?

I do not know if Bush should leave for that, the American public had and made the choice on that matter.
I do feel that the SecDefense should not be there.
He did not follow the oath that he took and had to have directed people that provided guidance to the problem makers.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: AlricTheMad
Seems to me this kind of activity is what we removed Sadam Hussain from power for. We are signatories to the Geneva Convention. We (the Administration) claims to be better.

Guess we better act it.

Pat

The insurgents in Iraq are in no way protected by the Geneva Convention.

they are, they are they for the most part are legiment resistance to an occupational power

Problem is that they are not resisting as a political entitiy.
They are equivalent in political status to AQ.

Should there be a political control of the insurrgents, that would be different. They are not trying for anything other than just terrorizing their own people, destroying there facilities.

Look at the Kurds for example under Saddam vs. what you have now. The Kurds created and maintained their own governement and territory.
The insurrgents are trying for complete destruction not contruction of the government (even one that they could create) Where is the Iraqi leadership for the insurrgency? Even in exile, there is nothing.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: RealityTimePerhaps when this administration is through with exercising their sickness, they will have a position for you manning the ovens ? :shocked:

I have been there.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: AlricTheMad
Seems to me this kind of activity is what we removed Sadam Hussain from power for. We are signatories to the Geneva Convention. We (the Administration) claims to be better.

Guess we better act it.

Pat

The insurgents in Iraq are in no way protected by the Geneva Convention.

they are, they are they for the most part are legiment resistance to an occupational power

Problem is that they are not resisting as a political entitiy.
They are equivalent in political status to AQ.

Should there be a political control of the insurrgents, that would be different. They are not trying for anything other than just terrorizing their own people, destroying there facilities.

Look at the Kurds for example under Saddam vs. what you have now. The Kurds created and maintained their own governement and territory.
The insurrgents are trying for complete destruction not contruction of the government (even one that they could create) Where is the Iraqi leadership for the insurrgency? Even in exile, there is nothing.

first time I hear about this
is that one of the requirements in the geneva convention?
got link, quote?

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Sultan
And you suggest feeding a person pork product will break someone's will?

And do you think this is better than not destroying the body:

Marked "sensitive but unclassified"
Dated 2 August 2004
Name of sender blanked out

The writer claims to have witnessed abuses at Guantanamo Bay, including seeing an inmate chained hand a foot in a foetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water. They often urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left for over 24 hours.

On one occasion a detainee appeared to have pulled his hair out after having to spend the night in a room without ventilation or air conditioning

Either method that gets results is acceptable.
Humilitation and deprevation will work.

I would belive that a room would have ventilation. Circulation is another story.
Air must be able to get in and out.
A/C may be considered a luxury.

Used to be called a sweatbox or a hole in the ground. Except then, insects, reptiles and animals were allowed to visit. The bolded comment seems to be a much nicer situation.

With respect to pork, why not have a pig placed in the cell with the prisoner.
Or wrap them up in a skin.
Either way, if their beliefs in being unclean are strong enough, they should be willing to provide information in order to be removed from that situation.

The whole intention of interrogration is to generate incentives for information needed to be obtained that was not initially voluntarily provided

By this same logic, I can argue the whole intention of beheadings is to get the US occupying forces to leave Iraq which they wont do otherwise.

And you're saying the form of torture where a man pulls his hair out is acceptable?

Also, its not like you'll go to hell for being wrapped around with pig skin.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: AlricTheMad
Seems to me this kind of activity is what we removed Sadam Hussain from power for. We are signatories to the Geneva Convention. We (the Administration) claims to be better.

Guess we better act it.

Pat

The insurgents in Iraq are in no way protected by the Geneva Convention.

they are, they are they for the most part are legiment resistance to an occupational power

Not when many of them are carrying foreign passports and can be verified as foreign citizens. They do not qualify as combatants under the Convention.

most of them are iraqis and therefore covered

As I recall the Convention even requires the Iraqis to make their status as belligerents known clearly by wearing uniforms. There is a short term provision for un-uniformed resistance, but I would say sufficent time has elapsed for them to make themselves known.

Anyway, all the elements fighting the US/Iraqi forces in Iraq are not aligned politically with each other or the majority will of the Iraqi people.

 

[Red Dawn]

As an American I prefer to be held to higher standards than third world nations and tin horn dictatorships. As long as we strive to achieve those standards I will never be ashamed to be an American..even if we fail at times.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: AlricTheMad
Seems to me this kind of activity is what we removed Sadam Hussain from power for. We are signatories to the Geneva Convention. We (the Administration) claims to be better.

Guess we better act it.

Pat

The insurgents in Iraq are in no way protected by the Geneva Convention.

they are, they are they for the most part are legiment resistance to an occupational power

Problem is that they are not resisting as a political entitiy.
They are equivalent in political status to AQ.

Should there be a political control of the insurrgents, that would be different. They are not trying for anything other than just terrorizing their own people, destroying there facilities.

Look at the Kurds for example under Saddam vs. what you have now. The Kurds created and maintained their own governement and territory.
The insurrgents are trying for complete destruction not contruction of the government (even one that they could create) Where is the Iraqi leadership for the insurrgency? Even in exile, there is nothing.

first time I hear about this
is that one of the requirements in the geneva convention?
got link, quote?

The Geneva convention was setup to support/control rules of warfare between countries.
Countries have a political entitiy.
Resistance can also have political control, intended on then running the territory that is being contested.
Terrorist exist to destroy the existing government, not to create a new one.

Art 43. Armed forces

1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.

3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.

Notice that there is a direct reference to a command responsible for conduct. - bolded for reference
The insurrgents have not provide such.