I have no idea if that guy is a terrorist. But he's not being tortured in that photo. Having a hood placed on your head and being forced to pose for a photo is certainly poor judgment by those soldiers. I don't see how it's torture though.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed, however, is a terrorist. And we caught him by squeezing Abu Zubaida by not giving him pain medication for the gunshot wounds he suffered in a shootout with our soldiers. Zubaida sang like a canary and got us KSM. And then we got Ramzi bin al Shibh from that one. Yeah, I lose sleep at night thinking about that grave injustice.:rolleyes:

"Sherwood you are confusing two completely separate issues. The first deals with what Stuart is talking about, those people arrested or captured in theater. They are not afforded the protection of the Geneva conventions."

Unfortunately, some were captured at home or in a sweep in their neighborhood, or turned in by a "concerned" neighbor. "In theater" as you call it. Without due process, that's really too bad for them isn't it?

"You are talking about people detained either here or abroad on suspicion of aiding or abetting terrorism outside of the theater. They are ALSO not afforded the Geneva conventions."

Yep. Correct. Under suspicion. Those are the people who are open to torture isn't it? Those w/o rights.

"International terrorism is a police matter. It is not a military matter. The people who undergo rendition do so at the command of the CIA, not the military. The two issues are completely separate. The reason the US has been able to keep these people without charges is because they are in a legal no-man's land."

Huh? If it's a police matter, why is our military in Iraq fighting terrorism? And what piece of administrative policy act launched the detainees into no-man's land?

"Whether extraordinary rendition is right or wrong is another debate completely, but the facts of the matter are clear. Neither combatants (since you seem to like that term better than terrorists) inside or outside of Iraq are afforded the protections of the Geneva conventions as POWs because they do not meet the requirements set forth in those conventions. It really is not complicated."

It's not another debate if you're talking about torturing detainees. And if detainees are never charged, how can they be labeled a terrorist? Just because they're arrested? That seems to be a pretty good blanket law our administration has created.

From Rick:
".... I have no idea if that guy is a terrorist. But he's not being tortured in that photo. Having a hood placed on your head and being forced to pose for a photo is certainly poor judgment by those soldiers. I don't see how it's torture though."

You're correct. Posing for a snapshot @ 1/60 sec. is not torture. Did he smile or adjust his hood before being recorded? Do you know what happened before or after the photo was taken? Do you know the wires weren't connected to a transformer with a SPST NO momentary switch and controlled by an untrained interrogator? Do you see any bruises or wounds on his head or body? You probably don't see it.

What makes you so sure our ***** doesn't stink? No questions in your mind? No doubts? Black and white? It's not me. What me worry?

:rolleyes:
Sherwood

Oh good Lord. You either don't get it or refuse to get it.

You seem to want to lay the blame for people in Iraq getting picked up in sweeps at the US military's feet while completely ignoring the true cause of the problem...THE TERRORISTS.

If al Qaeda in Iraq would stop hiding in mosques, disappearing into those very neighborhoods after attacks and strapping bombs to women in order to make them look pregnant and in distress prior to detonating the bombs (yes they actually do this) then the US military wouldn't HAVE to perform neighborhood sweeps.

Let us all hear your wisdom, Sherwood. 20-something men wearing civilian clothes come out of a neighborhood and open fire on US soldiers. They then retreat back into the neighborhood. When you go through that neighborhood, what are you to do with all the 20-something men you find? Oh wait, I know, we'll just politely ask them who did the shooting...that will work...the terrorists will come right out and admit it. OR, maybe we can just look for the big T over their heads...T for terrorist.

On the contrary, I think you might be missing something here. Sherwood wants us to lose, and the only way we can lose is at home politically, never on the battlefield.

Oh please. Spare me the, "He criticizes the govt., thus he's an enemy-sympathizer" maneuver. That is so.... hard core right wing (excuse the stereotype) and devoid of any critical thought process. It must be swell to see the world in black and white terms - we good, them bad.

It's difficult to discuss when a mind is closed. This and other threads show me that's the case.

Case in point.
You want to consider everyone arrested in Iraq a terrorist and without any rights and thus legally subject to waterboarding and, btw, which you consider isn't torture. Have I got that right?

If those links I provided don't elicit any doubts in your mind as to what constitutes torture; if the video interview of a former Naval interrogation trainer doesn't give you pause, then you're the type of blindly loyal Americans this administration has successfully targeted. I suggested you take a look and listen. You come back with absolutes.

wow.
Sherwood

I never ever said everyone arrested in Iraq was a terrorist. Nothing remotely like that. And I don't care that people criticize the gov't. I do it too. You, however, do nothing but apologize for terrorists, claim they deserve the same rights and protections as legitimate combatants and that anything but coddling them means we we're torturing them.

It is still true no matter how much you dislike it.

So exactly what ISN'T torture in your mind? It sounds like any treatment that would cause emotional distress is torture to you. How far does that go? I mean, if you made them watch that one scene from Steel Magnolias that always gets my wife to tear up...is that torture too?

With those kinds of standards, exactly how do you propose to get any information out of people who have no desire to give that information to you?

That is correct. But the classifcation of "unlawful combatant" is entirely an invention of the Bush govt, as of 2006.

Do you a sense of irony at all, Sammy?

So you agree then that illegal combatant status pre-dates the USA, however unlawful combatant is completely a fabrication of the Bush administration.

Makes perfect sense.

I guess it depends on what the definition of is, is....

Mule.

If you thought about it for a while, you might undersand that Al Jazeera, as a trail blazer of free media in the region, is in fact your greatest ally in War on Terror, and more importantly, not your enemy.

Even if true, that is utterly irrelevant. A US soldier in training has no expectation that his employer will kill him.

A detainee is led to believe he may can be killed at the whim of his captors. And as we know, this is not an illusion created to aid the effectiveness of interogation.

http://yellowcakewalk.net/2006-06-10...aib_murder.jpg

I assume you mean predates recent US law? Well yes Rick. Its there in black and white, you see.

The status of "illegal combatant" is defined in the GCs to which most countries (ie yours) are signatories. It defines how illegal combatants should be/can be dealt with.

The new classification "unlawful combatant" is a unilateral invention of the Bush admistration, codefied in US law in 2006, to allow it to evade the treatment of detainees as "illegal combatants" under the GCs, international or civil law. Its effect was effect to deny deatinees any status, or the rights confered by a particular status.

The status of "unlawful combatant" is not one defined or recognised in the GCs or by signatory countries to the GCs.

I hope that helps. I think it correct, if anyone knows better, I would welcome the correction.

Man, why didn't I think of that? I think I'd better add them to my DirecTV package and bookmark their website. They'll probably show me more photos of Abu Graib than you can even dig up, you know, just to show how evil the U.S. is. And that's the goal of most media outlets these days anyway.

Im sure you meant to add- "in your opinion".

Sorry you feel that way. Al Jazeera is run along the lines of the BBC. I understand that would be an anathema to you.

StuartCJ,

Both Germany and the U.K. had definitions of legal and illegal combatants during WWII and the U.S. adopted the British model. The parsing of illegal or unlawful for domestic all various domestic purposes…

I have been unable to find any prosecution by the Western victors of WWII of any of the vanquished for their treatment of illegal combatants.

S/F, FOG

StuartCJ,

Please deal with the real world and not some fantasy life. Servicemen die in training, that includes SERE type training and it is both known and briefed. SERE training is voluntary. Captives of the U.S. during interrogation know they are no good to the U.S. if they are dead and that the U.S goes a long way to keep them alive.

I have no idea what a picture of a soldier with piss poor leadership has to do with actual interrogation, unless you are insinuating that poor leadership and stuff happens are the actual U.S. goal.

S/F, FOG

Im insinuating nothing. Im stating facts.

The US Defence forces have a duty of care to its employees and a soldier has a reasonable expectaion that his employer- hazardous duty and accident notwithsatnding- wont kill him.

A detainee has no such expectation- and thanks to "unlawful combatant"- also has no acess to any form of due process, nor does there appear to be any siuch duty of care.

I'm sure they would prefere this than what the terrorist actually do to them:mad:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1215613130.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1215613204.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1215613380.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1215613430.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1215613541.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1215613637.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1215613713.jpg

Byron, those freedom fighters don't have to play by the rules. And it's always America's fault anyway.

To take a step back, though, just because they do it (torture), that doesn't make it acceptable for us to do it in return. It like using the logic that we should allow the police to molest the children of child molester because, hey, "they do it too".

Now, before anybody jumps down my throat, I'm only trying to make a point. IMHO, the real thing that needs to be discussed here is how effective is torture at obtaining reliable, useful information? If someone was holding my daughter hostage, for instance, and I had someone else in my possession that knew where she was, you can bet that I would be tempted use any means necessary to extract that information so I understand the need to extract information. I have read alot of information, though, that suggests that torture isn't a great way to gain reliable info and that it also carries with it negatvie reprocussions.

We can argue all day long the definitions in the GCs, but in the end, is it the right thing to be doing?

Here's a thought. All the detainees should be released from the military prisons and subjected to "due process" through the systems of their home countries. Wonder which they would prefer?

Mike you make a valid point, but what is your alternative? I'm being serious here, how do you expect to get information out of prisoners who in some cases would rather die than give up that info? It's not like criminals in the US where you can make a "deal". Telling a jihadist that we will put him up in a cushy house in Vegas just isn't going to do the trick.

When and where have we done anything remotely similar to those tactics in the al Qaeda training manual? How in the world do you equate some idiot soldiers taking photos of Iraqi detainees in embarassing positions with getting dragged to death behind a car, burned with an iron, drilled, shocked, etc.?

Well, for sure if the answer was simple this thread wouldn't exist. I don't have the answer. I wish I did. I admit that I am naive in that I have a hard time understanding the mentality of these people (the radical extremists). I don't have the answer, but do fear that our tactics make us no better than them.

How do you know what we really do? How do you really know what occurs at the hands of those people that are the subjects of rendition?

I never equated anything, BTW.

How do you know what we do? Why do you assume the worst? I'm pretty sure that, if we had some torture manual like al Qaeda's, you know, where it's a national policy to inflict extreme pain and suffering just because they're al Qaeda, well, someone would leak that to the press. A few soldiers getting out of line (and not even torturing those Iraqis) does not exactly consitute a national torture policy.

We've released hundreds if not thousands of detainees between Iraq, Afghanistan and Gitmo. I'm not aware of any who ran to the media to show off their torture scars. And I'm also not aware of any Americans ever released by the terrorists. Some escaped or were rescued, but none were released.

I don't know. I also do not assume the worst, but I also know that we - as armchair idiots sitting behind keyboards all day - don't really know what happens behind every closed door. If this country is at the point it is discussing waterboarding and trying to legitimize its use, then I fear we are already on the slippery slope. Purely my opinion.

You've already heard from a few Pelicans here who were waterboarded in training many years before we'd even heard of al Qaeda. And they lived to tell about it here on PPOT. I'll make the wild guess those same guys would rather be waterboarded anyday than have anything in those drawings Byron posted done to them.

If you really want to torture someone, make them listen to Rap & disco:eek:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1215619856.jpg

So waterboarding is OK, because even though it is torture, it's not really that bad? It's OK because it's not nearly as bad as being dragged behind a car? To me, that is a scary rationalization. Maybe I "can't handle the truth".

Like I said earlier, I think a better direction for this discussion is "does it work"? Is torture the best tool in the toolbox for extracting reliable, useful information? Has anyone here seen the movie "Rendition"? It's just a movie, I know, but I would be surprised if it was completely off-base as to what goes on.

Yes, I'm fine with waterboarding. We all know it broke KSM and that's good enough for me. I don't want to treat al Qaeda detainees well. I want them to suffer badly. They welcome death. They don't welcome torture.

Sorry, who said waterboarding was torture again? Did we agree on that? I didn't think so.

You are looking to a f'ing movie as a buttress for your position:eek:

WB'ing is not torture. What has become torture to me is the moral equivocation.

Has anyone seen the movie, 'The Longest yard' It's just a movie, I know, but I would be surprised if it was completely off-base as to what goes on in Prison sports. I am outraged.

Ridiculous. Gitmo should feed 'em beanie weenies, give em a unlimited korans & no toilet paper. Ahmed, you got a decision to make. Remember, fighting with no uniform is a death sentence, and has been for a long time. Any consideration we give them is out of the kindness of our hearts. The only ones upset are muslims & lefties, coincidence? Both are enemies of America!

Stuart,

You are stating bald faced lies and have zero knowledge of care nor transport of prisoners, whether they are legal, illegal, or unlawful.

Access to due process exists and is exercised during the process, research of facts helps with comprehension. Due process that moronic idiots want is another thing entirely.

S/F, FOG

So, you haven't seen the movie, I take it? The point from the movie that I thought was relevant was that the guy doing the torturing didn't care whether the guy being tortured gave up any information or not - he was just there to do a job. In other words, the torturing wasn't working, but the guy didn't care. I don't think there was any waterboarding in the movie.

You guys are too quick to call names and automatically label someone as an idiot if they don't agree with you. I was actually attempting to have a rational discussion on this. Nevermind. Pretty soon Mule will call me a lefty or something. :rolleyes:

IROC,

There are vast differences between torture (see Racer’s post for a mild view) and harsh interrogation methods. You are already defining SERE methods as torture, which is new wave PC double speak and not in accordance with history.

I have had ITT (Interrogator Translator) teams work for me and while I had to get smart quick it did not in any way shape or form make me an effective Interrogator. Lack of skill by the Interrogator does not mean the technique(s) are ineffective.

S/F, FOG

I saw the movie. I also did not call anyone a name...I simply disagreed with you.

There is a huge body of learned discussion that calls into question information gleaned from torture...there is also a counter argument that posits the information, if the informant is held for long periods of time, is relevant.

A rational discussion, IMHO, never includes a reference to a movie. And I say again, I never call anyone names...