Surfs up. Christopher Hitchens goes waterboarding

[Rick Lee]

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.

[911pcars]

"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?


Sherwood

[Nathans_Dad]

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.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

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

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.

[911pcars]

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

[Rick Lee]

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.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by 911pcars

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

Sherwood

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

[Nathans_Dad]

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?

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by FOG

911,

The concept of legal and illegal combatants pre-dates the USA. The treatment of legal and illegal combatants was addressed during and post both world wars, and the legalese is mostly European in origin as it relates to the Geneva, Hague, etc. conventions.

S/F, FOG

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

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

During the American revolution the british fought a gentlemen's war. Marching in line, standing out in the open, not firing on officers.

The revolutionaries started firing from behind trees and targetted officers. The British though that was barbaric but it worked. Similar comparisons could be made about the viet cong and the americans.
The terrorists do not fight conventional battles. If we say we are above that and need to be "gentlemen" we will lose.
F that.
War is hell and should be fought to win. Period. I'd prefer we don't lose a war because some bleeding freaking heart liberal insists that we worry about making terrorists comfortable or playing nicely. That's a loser's strategy and history has proven it too many times.

Do you a sense of irony at all, Sammy?

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by stuartj

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

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....

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Mule

Is that what happened to you?

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.

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by FOG

Stuart,

Yes there distinctions between the two groups. Due to the general health and fitness of the U.S. military members the interrogators learned to go to a certain level, and injuries still occur as in any training. What has been found is that enemies held are unable to sustain the same level of interrogation w/o injury so the interrogators have had to dial things back.

S/F, FOG

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.

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

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....

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.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by stuartj

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.

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.

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

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.

[FOG]

Originally Posted by stuartj

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

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

[FOG]

Originally Posted by stuartj

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.

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

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by 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.

[Racerbvd]

Look at it this way: if US soldiers were being routinely subjected to this procedure by Taliban forces, would you have the same (seemingly cavalier) opinion as to relative innocence of waterboarding? Our men should just suck it up? After all - according to Jeff's chain-yanking attempts, this is really no more intense than having water splashed in your face or playing with a Frisbee.

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