ten_of_spades: For your first point:

I never argued that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply in the war on terror; I wrote that the Geneva Convetion relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War does not apply. As for the 'compentent trial' part: did the Taliban have a standing army to meet the requirement of Article 4.1? I know recognition of a government is irrelevant, but was there even an organized army in Afghanistan for the Article to apply to?

It's odd to me that the policy that's defended by the administration is so different from the ROE that the soldiers on the ground are confined to in Iraq.

That's my biggest point here I guess, as a uniformed soldier I was required to conform to certain standards of prisoner treatment. Yet civilian operators and even military intelligence personnel aren't held to the same standards, even when their lives are in nowhere near as much jeopardy, considering everyone's respective role.

The BBC is a reliable source of information; it's not as if I pulled the definition from WND or News Max (God forbid I ever use them as a source:p)

I take no issue with the BBC, but it's still an interpretation. My training taught me that the Geneva Conventions applied to ANY prisoner in any conflict, period. We were not given the luxury of loopholes, we were expected to behave in accordance with the law, whether the enemy did or not.

The Tantamount Argument

My dictionary gives several meanings ('practically the same as' being one of them), yours gives another. I would have just preferred they came out and said 'the US tortures'; much more direct and to the point.

I would have preferred this as well, but by definition it means the same thing. It's not as though it matters much, the Red cross has been critical of our methods for quite some time. It would seem that their complaints are falling upon deaf ears in D.C. right now.

Ok, clearly you have me beaten there. Sorry to have bitten your head off, but the way you wrote it seemed like an insult directed at me (had you just said 'your view of it is oversimplified', we'd be fine).

Fair enough. Maybe I overreacted, I apologize.

I do become frustrated with the 'chickenhawks' sometimes, especially those who throw words like "liberal", "hippie" and "commie" around. I may be liberal, but I fought for my country even when I didn't agree with the conflict. And I'll be damned if I'm going to allow anyone to question my patriotism or committment to my nation based solely on my political beliefs. If this makes me a bit rough in my replies I am sorry.

The simple truth here is that the world is not black and white, we can't all be categorized so easily, so maybe we should stop tryng and just look for solutions to the problems at hand.

So far just a bunch of speculation. If there is ever any hard proof brought out, then I'd be the first to criticize the Bush administration over it (loopholes are one thing, but willfully breaking the law is another)

I believe in the old addage "where there's smole there's fire". In my objective opinion there's enough information surfacing for one to assume this practice of kidnapping and torture has occured a few times. In my opinion just one occurance of such behavior is wrong enough. if this took place without consent from the White House they should be publicly cleaning house on those who allowed such crimes in a very transparent way. We can not claim moral superiority while kidnapping and torturing citizens of other soverign nations, period.

bmasso

I have seen many Prisoners surrender first hand. There is almost always a translator. They almost always surrender their weapons. It is not like you say, "pretty please". They are staring down the barrel of an M-16 with their buddies dead beside them. Me thinks you got your protocol training from War movies.

lordargent: IMO, the way you spelled it just looks retarded.

Well we're all entitled to those I guess.

I've been typing it that way for years, sorry if it bothers you, I will not be changing the habit anytime soon however.

Then you should also know that in a field situation , it can and will go wrong in less than a second. The subject will not stop approaching you, the crowd of bystanders gets in your way (their blase' attitude toward rifles is all too real), the subject has accomplices that keep moving toward your periphery appearing to flank you.

You don't know dick about field situations or how fast it can go wrong. There are no bystanders that are blase in the middle of a hostile confrontation. Nobody just walks around shopping for groceries during a firefight. No soldier is out there alone, so if a fire team or whole squad of soldiers can't cover 360 degrees, they're useless and improperly trained. Don't use the word "flank". You picked it up off the history channel and it shows.

Yeah Mojo if you know, then should also know not to second judge the boys in the field.

Oh, so what I as a former soldier should and should not know is up to you now, is it? I'll judge whom and what I please. Soldiers have committed atrocious acts in the past, sometimes because of the person in the uniform, and sometimes because of the uniform itself. And I will reserve judgment for those people. Remember that Marine that shot the wounded Iraqi point-blank in the head? I remember alot of other soldiers heaping tons of judgment, most all of it negative, on to him. Those soldiers who didn't judge him negatively did so because he had been shot in the face the day before and was probably heavily on edge and not thinking straight at all. Actions like that tarnish the image of everybody in the service. The only hard-core apologists were little stay-at-home chickenhawk bastards like you that live out your weird little glory fantasies through us, as if seeing yourself in the mirror polish of our parade boots somehow made you a soldier too.

People like you aren't big, dropping terms you picked up from Saving Private Ryan and the History Channel, talking about "what its like in the field". Servicemen and normal, sane people see right through you. They see you for what you are, some pathetic little taggers-on walking around in outdated camouflage patterns and black work boots talking about "this great A&E documentary on flanking tactics" as if the real soldiers will send you a gilt-lettered invitation to enlist, no physical needed, and would you please RSVP?

GWLush
"bmasso :
What branch were you in?"

Army. mostly in INSCOM, to be exact.
Sounds more exciting than it was.

My younger sister used to joke that she'd ask me what I did,
but then I'd have to kill her.
And - no - it didn't involve prisoners OR interogations.

Were you in yourself? What Branch/Command?

GWLush: bmasso

I have seen many Prisoners surrender first hand. There is almost always a translator. They almost always surrender their weapons. It is not like you say, "pretty please". They are staring down the barrel of an M-16 with their buddies dead beside them. Me thinks you got your protocol training from War movies.


I concur.

I_C_Weener:

So, lets do the sensible thing...take care of what we do, and worry less about what others think. That way, we can make sure that we live up to out ideals, not their perceptions.

You are paying too much attention to the fact that we pay too little attention to the fact that we pay too much attention to the attention that others are paying to us, be it too much or too little.

Thank you for letting me clear that up.

I was in the Marines from 92-00. I started as a radio technician and reenlisted into a different MOS (NBC) in my last four years.

bmasso

You're right, I jumped the gun on you a bit. Yes, executing surrendering prisoners is nothing new, of course. It's still illegal to do it, but its not like some new thing invented by those whacky Amuricuns. And, of course, it is despicable.

You're also quite right about the risk to a capturer. While GWLush raises a good point -- most genuine surrenders will go smoothly with the help of a translator and a show of force, there's always the risk that something can go very wrong, very fast. The procedure is meant to eliminate that risk as much as possible, but you never know what somebody will get in their head. Whatever it is, they'll most likely get shot to death. But the risk, as in any war (or any day in any person's life, for that matter), is there.

And Chairborne Ranger, I like that. Never heard it before.

Funny how there are shows on cable like "Jack ASS" that show acts of what would be considered tortcher. But it's O.K. to have these programs aired. Where are all the politically correct liberals that should make a stink about this. The irony is just funny.

Well, when you were once the standard setter and now you're lowering the bar, maybe you should be scolded.

bangman

Did you just compare torturing prisoners to the show Jackass? Where they get paid to pull pranks on each other? Where there is a doctor on hand in case something goes wrong?

You sir, are hilarious.

bangman: Funny how there are shows on cable like "Jack ASS" that show acts of what would be considered tortcher. But it's O.K. to have these programs aired. Where are all the politically correct liberals that should make a stink about this. The irony is just funny.

Wow, just wow.

Is this like comparing the documented abuses at Abu Ghraib to "college pranks"?

So how is it to suck so much at life?

GWLush : "I have seen many Prisoners surrender first hand. There is almost always a translator. They almost always surrender their weapons. It is not like you say, "pretty please". They are staring down the barrel of an M-16 with their buddies dead beside them."

Freely admit, my service was non-combat. Talked to a lot of fellow soldiers who did get to see the elephant, though. Not close to anyone currently serving over there - but isn't there a big shortage of translators? Do they really have enough to deploy them at the squad-level routinely? And has training on this subject changed much from what it was in the 80's?

"Me thinks you got your protocol training from War movies."

Nope, it may be a bit rusty (out 16+ years now) but it was at least partly official. So if you're trying to call "shenanagins" on me (on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog) I think you'll be disappointed. Anyhow, if I was going to Rambo-up an identity to bolster an opinion I'd become something like a "6-year combat-decorated marine" or something, not a freely-admitted Chairborne Ranger that I am.

It's odd to me that the policy that's defended by the administration is so different from the ROE that the soldiers on the ground are confined to in Iraq.

I would think the war in Iraq is treated like a conventional war in terms of rules of engagement, etc... since the Geneva Convention clearly applies there. When it comes to dealing with terrorists though, well, I wouldn't want to be in the Bush administration's shoes.

That's my biggest point here I guess, as a uniformed soldier I was required to conform to certain standards of prisoner treatment. Yet civilian operators and even military intelligence personnel aren't held to the same standards, even when their lives are in nowhere near as much jeopardy, considering everyone's respective role.

I can see how that would be frustrating, but they are two different jobs. It would be good for both soldiers and civilian operators to work by the same standards, but intelligence, by its nature, can't always come out like the good guy in white.

I take no issue with the BBC, but it's still an interpretation. My training taught me that the Geneva Conventions applied to ANY prisoner in any conflict, period. We were not given the luxury of loopholes, we were expected to behave in accordance with the law, whether the enemy did or not.

Again, I'd say the US is acting in accordance with the law re: terrorists, but it's still a grey area. If the UN could stop messing around and come up with a clear definition on what a terrorist is, that would be helpful.

On a related note, it seems the most logical definition would be: a group/individual, not officially part of a government office, which targets civilians. If you meet both criteria, you're a terrorist, if you don't, you're not.

I would have preferred this as well, but by definition it means the same thing. It's not as though it matters much, the Red cross has been critical of our methods for quite some time. It would seem that their complaints are falling upon deaf ears in D.C. right now.

I guess we're in agreement on that then.

Fair enough. Maybe I overreacted, I apologize.

Accepted, and sorry for calling you an ass;)



I do become frustrated with the 'chickenhawks' sometimes, especially those who throw words like "liberal", "hippie" and "commie" around. I may be liberal, but I fought for my country even when I didn't agree with the conflict. And I'll be damned if I'm going to allow anyone to question my patriotism or committment to my nation based solely on my political beliefs. If this makes me a bit rough in my replies I am sorry.

Understandable.


...

I believe in the old addage "where there's smole there's fire". In my objective opinion there's enough information surfacing for one to assume this practice of kidnapping and torture has occured a few times. In my opinion just one occurance of such behavior is wrong enough. if this took place without consent from the White House they should be publicly cleaning house on those who allowed such crimes in a very transparent way. We can not claim moral superiority while kidnapping and torturing citizens of other soverign nations, period.

If the allegations are proven true, then I'll be 100% in agreement with you.

Did you just compare torturing prisoners to the show Jackass? Where they get paid to pull pranks on each other? Where there is a doctor on hand in case something goes wrong?

Not to mention the part where they, you know, fully consent to it. I think that's the difference here. If I want my girlfriend to spank my ass for free with no doctor around, even that's pretty cool. Cause I said it was a-okay for her to do it.

I like the novelty spelling of "tortcher" too. It's almost as fun as "Jack ASS".

GWLush

Also the show "Team Sanchez".
I'm just saying that they do some things to each other that would be considered torture. Just an observation.

Wow, a lot of people in this thread don't get the problem. If you want to protect your country, some steps must be taken that not everyone is going to agree with. These people were (well, I at least) are fighting don't care about the UN, or politics, and are perfectly willing to do anything to destroy the infidels. In case your wondering what an infidel is, that would be everyone here. You, all of you, WANT YOUR COUNTRY TO TORTURE THESE PEOPLE BECAUSE IT WILL STOP AMERICANS FROM BEING KILLED. The enemy is not smart, not well equipped, and relies in religeous zeal. If someone came to your town with a car bomb and blew up a few blocks that just so happened to include your family, you too would do whatever it takes to make sure that this doesn't happen again to others. To do otherwise is lying to yourself.

\Enlisted in the US Army Infantry
\\Going to fight these people face to face

If someone came to your town with a car bomb and blew up a few blocks that just so happened to include your family, you too would do whatever it takes to make sure that this doesn't happen again to others. To do otherwise is lying to yourself.

Yeah, I remember the construction of shanty town rape camps for the all the gung-ho WASP males like you after Tim McVeigh did his little deed. Like it was yesterday.

bmasso

We had quite a few translators in Desert Storm. They were not on every patrol though. We also had a lot of pamphlets with phonetic translations on them. So that helped. I think they revamped the training for Desert Storm. I remember the manuals being newer.

Granted DS is a far cry from what is going on over there now. The same rules do still apply though.

Fair enough. Using "Saving Private Ryan", to prove a point, made me think you were FOS. Apologies.

Karate_Kid

"The enemy is not smart, not well equipped, and relies in religeous zeal."

Well, thank god for you being as smart, well equipped, and obviously real tranquil as you are.

Go man, kick the farking towelheads in the nuts, this will show them not to wage wars. Real smart. I see your point.

So you're proud that you're gonna fight them there, until they learned that fighting is not the answer?

You were kidding, right?

Fair enough. Using "Saving Private Ryan", to prove a point, made me think you were FOS. Apologies.

Same, and, apologies once again. By the way, if some of the references go over my head, I'm a little more to the north of the 49th parallel than you guys.

Karate_Kid

I applaud you for signing up.

I have a feeling your views on this will change after boot camp. If they don't you weren't paying attention.

The point is that these guys aren't going to respond to sanctions or any of that garbage. What's necessary is to dump as many of these people into the afterlife as possible. I make no apoligies for it.

Karate_Kid

It's people like you that give other soldiers a bad name. You don't want to fight for freedom or honor. You just want to kill people.

The point is that these guys aren't going to respond to sanctions or any of that garbage. What's necessary is to dump as many of these people into the afterlife as possible. I make no apoligies for it.

No, what's necessary is to find the cause of this and stop them. These people, the terrorists, are the symptom of a particular type of fermenting hate. If you could take that away, you'd have otherwise normal, productive people. Alot of these people have nothing, too, and they're promised everything. Some are well-off, and do it from a warped belief. The ones who are truly well off are just assholes, you'll never see Osama strap a bomb to himself. Better let the poor do that.

Don't forget, we rattled their cages. We got them worked up, kicked them around, gave them some guns when the Soviets came a-knockin', toppled their governments, invaded their affairs, and then scratch our heads when we find the violent creature that we bred is as capable of sinking its teeth into us as it is into our enemies. Until we stop tinkering in the lives of the innocent this will continue to happen on a larger and larger scale. You'll never cure evil, but its nice to believe we can at least make a concerted effort to minimize it.

You, all of you, WANT YOUR COUNTRY TO TORTURE THESE PEOPLE BECAUSE IT WILL STOP AMERICANS FROM BEING KILLED.

Except, dumbass, TORTURE DOESN'T WORK.

Karate_Kid: Wow, a lot of people in this thread don't get the problem. If you want to protect your country, some steps must be taken that not everyone is going to agree with.

As long as those steps are within the law I guess. but hoe do we maintain the supposed moral high ground while torturing prisoners?


These people were (well, I at least) are fighting don't care about the UN, or politics, and are perfectly willing to do anything to destroy the infidels.

"Were" fighting, or "we're" fighting? Yes, they want to kill us, we get that, you can stop shouting it on a daily basis to keep the fear level high. They can want to kill us all they like, this still doesn't justify our use of torture.

In case your wondering what an infidel is, that would be everyone here. You, all of you, WANT YOUR COUNTRY TO TORTURE THESE PEOPLE BECAUSE IT WILL STOP AMERICANS FROM BEING KILLED.

Or, perhaps our torturing them will just piss off even more of them and help them to recruit more killers thereby having the opposite effect you cited, wow, there's a flipside, imagine that.

The enemy is not smart, not well equipped, and relies in religeous zeal.

I hope to god that you don't make the mistake of underestimating the enemy in this manner once you're deployed, if you do, you'll likely not be coming home kid.

If someone came to your town with a car bomb and blew up a few blocks that just so happened to include your family, you too would do whatever it takes to make sure that this doesn't happen again to others. To do otherwise is lying to yourself.

But they didn't, and the war that you're likely to be deployed to has absolutely jack-shiat to do with terrorist, it has to do with a flawed neoconservative worldview and a desire to secure needed energy sources for the near future. To continue to assert otherwise after all claims of Iraq's ties to 9/11 have been proven false is lying to yourself.

I hope you make it home alive to regrett your jingoist views.

\Enlisted in the US Army Infantry

Says a lot about your aptitude for critical thinking.

\\Going to fight these people face to face

Really, they're sending newly recruited Army infantry to fight in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria and Saudi Arabia, I hadn't heard.

Remember a few things GI Joe, we invaded their country, we don't own it and we don't own them. Watch your six, listen to the guys that have been there a while, and above all else remember that every time you go out there will be highly motivated and well-armed people trying to kill you.

Good luck.

Immaculate_Misconception: regrett

regret

So we've finally fallen to the level of defending ourselves by saying "But they do it, too!"!

Four years... I thought we could hold out for at least seven.

Karate_Kid:

The point is that these guys aren't going to respond to sanctions or any of that garbage. What's necessary is to dump as many of these people into the afterlife as possible. I make no apoligies for it.

Someone has been playing waaayyyy to many video games...


/BOOM! Headshot!
//Shakes head
///Make sure you take a change of underwear with you.
////Slash-ganistan!

So we've finally fallen to the level of defending ourselves by saying "But they do it, too!"!

Four years... I thought we could hold out for at least seven.

Don't hold it against yourself. You're a relatively young country. One day you'll learn nation-states have been doing just that for centuries.

Well, I toast you, United States of America. You had a good run, but now you've officially descended into Imperialist-apologism mediocrity.

Do try to climb out of the toilet, as we, the Rest of the World, still remember all the good things you are. We won't hold a few bad seeds against you.

do ANY of you actually look for the source of news?
that is 3rd and 4th hand news, and it's a sickening game of telephone that gets played with the facts.

a version of what was said from the actual UN News center:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=16845&Cr=torture&Cr1=

I'm busy looking for the damn transcript of her speech, meanwhile you clowns should stop taking what you read in the washington post as fact; it's a distorted truth, at best.

I'll be sure to vote against Castro and Assad in the next U.S. election. Why do americans keep voting those douchebags in?

Petit_Merdeux
Perhaps the world expects us to meet a higher standard than these shiathole countries?

It's true that other countries are expected to meet a lower standard than the US, but do so many people apply little pressure on them to actually meet that standard? Do other countries deserve to be less free? Are the victims of horrendous human rights violations occuring in the Middle East somehow less important than victims of lesser violations in the US just because those in the Middle East have been occurring longer?

Of course, any human rights violations occurring in the US must be investigated, but that's not the problem. The problem is that it appears that many of the people and organizations who used to champion the cause of freedom throughout the world have given up on certain nations almost entirely. I've heard a term for this sort of phenomenon: the soft bigotry of low expectations. I think it was originally used in the arguments against affirmative action, but it applies here as well, where the victims of serious human rights violations are denied the attention they deserve because their offending country's government meets a lowered status quo.

The problem isn't the highlighting of victims of US transgressions; it's the lowlighting of victims non-US transgressions.

Karate_Kid: The point is that these guys aren't going to respond to sanctions or any of that garbage.

You mean like Iraq did after the first gulf war, when they got rid of all of their WMDs, as ordered?

Or like Libya has responded to sanctions by stoping state sponsored support of terrorism?

History proves your rhetoric wrong.

Sanctions have worked.

Maybe you should quit playing video games and do some reading.

You made a decision that will endanger your life, and you did it based on rhetoric and jingoist bullshiat, not facts.

I'm not proud of your decision to serve, because it was obviously not made with any intelligent objectivity.

I can only hope that through training and experience you grow to see the error in your views. I will keep you in my thoughts.

AngelTwo-Six: Torture? Works pretty well. Ask McCain.

The thing to keep in mind is that if you won't fight with the intensity and fervor of your opponent, then you are as good as dead. Or beheaded...

If you are engaging in torture, you've just become your opponent, and so why on earth should I take your side in the fight?

This will not stand, man. This agression will not stand.

It's nice to hold supposedly A+ states like the U.S. to a higher human rights standard but it is a severely flawed tactic. Roughly the equivalent of handing down harsh penalties to a guy who, with no previous criminal record and an decent background, just committed manslaughter while putting the serial rapists on the backburner & not make an issue of their current practices. Or, for those proposing the legalization of drugs, it is like busting the guy who is growing his own weed, making a huge issue out of it, and focusing on him rather than on the guy whose marketing heroin to children, managing opium plantations, and engaging in an aray of violent activities.

And yes, it is nice to say that hey, the US should be held to a higher standard. But it also says that we do not expect other nations, particularly the ones engaging in egregious violations, to meet that standard. They know they can mess around and do as they please since we expect them to do such things. Thus, while putting the screws to the U.S. other countries sink to your level of expectations.

Karate_Kid:
...YOU WANT YOUR COUNTRY TO TORTURE THESE PEOPLE BECAUSE IT WILL STOP AMERICANS FROM BEING KILLED.

There is no evidence to support this. Who's to say that torturing these people won't simply harden their resolve, for example? Or cause more of our allies to stop helping us? In either of these cases torturing actually INCREASES the chances of Americans being killed, doesn't it?

And what about Americans captured by the enemy? Just imagine what might have happened to Jessica Lynch if our torturing had been public knowledge then...


The point is that these guys aren't going to respond to sanctions or any of that garbage

Really? It sure is curious then that this Administration keeps calling for sanctions as the solution to the Iran and North Korea problems. Please explain why sanctions couldn't possibly work for Iraq, but are apparently the only solution for these other two in the 'ol Axis of Evil. Don't make much sense, does it??

2005-12-08 04:05:03 PM itazurakko -
"If you are engaging in torture, you've just become your opponent, and so why on earth should I take your side in the fight?"


So if the US(or Israel because of similiar methodologies) is engaged in killing, the US (or Israel) has become our opponent?

Funny sounds like the difference between deliberately targeting non-combatants (arabic insurgents in multiple theaters) and targeting terrorists with resultant civilian casualties in an urban environment.

From he who is given much, much will be expected.

Try living by your own goddamn book.

Is there any proof that the US tortured people? Real proof, I've seen none. Real torture now.

Hey, bangman, I still don't see what your point is. Yes, shows like Jackass, Team Sanchez, and even occasionally Viva La Bam regularly show people doing things to themselves and each other that could be construed as torture, but the big difference is that those shows are voluntary, a doctor is standing by, and no one is really in fear that they will be killed or locked up for the rest of their lives if they don't give answers they may not even have.

As Kari pointed out in the Water Torture Test performed on Mythbusters, a significant portion of torture is a lack of power - you are imprisoned, and your captors control everything you do, even aside from torture. In addition, you may have no idea how long the torture will last, or any idea of what other things might be planned. These contribute to the effectiveness of torture (yes, I understand it can be effective - it's just morally wrong), and their absence would considerably lessen the horrible impact of torture.

That is one reason I feel the "nothing more than frat pranks" excuse is facile and ultimately irrelevant - actions taken by your frat brothers (people who will be your friends for life) in a house you have every intention of continuing to reside in simply cannot take on the more horrible psychological aspects that would be an inherent part of authoritarian torture.

Someone earlier in the thread said that the UN is in dire need of fixing because of various problems that occur in all governing bodies. A huge problem is that the UN has to rely heavily on the defense forces of its members, which for many countries isn't much. A good way to improve the UN's lack of ability to go on missions without the US would be to give them some actual teeth and power. Push for them to get an international army that is controlled by the UN, trained by the UN, etc. This isn't wanted by the US because if that comes about then the US may not be able to pull things like ignoring international treaties, invading sovereign nations, etc without fear of reprisal. Frankly I agree with the idea that the UN is needed, but it is also in need of an overhaul so that it can deal with things like 'USA gone wild', the massacres in Africa, and to remove some of the beauracratic corruption that has taken root.

liberals: you sheep are all like 'if you aren't with us, you're against us'

conservatives: you wackadoodles are all like 'if you don't agree with the talking points from Moveon and Teh Daily Show you're a Bush fellater'



/it's not news,
//it's jump the Fark.com

//there's my t-shirt design

Yeah, because as long as there's a country with worse abuses of human rights, the US is in the clear, right?

"But Syria" is the new "But Clinton"...