Surfs up. Christopher Hitchens goes waterboarding

[FOG]

Originally Posted by IROC

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.

IROC,

It would be a whole lot simpler if everybody would get educated on actual facts, on BS media misrepresentations, etc. History has lots of lessons on what is torture and what are harsh interrogation methods, the Ws of legal and illegal combatants.

Even those that are well versed on subjects can have debates and this thread would probably still exist, it’s just that we wouldn’t be dealing with bizarre fantasies of the situation but could have a reasoned discourse.

S/F, FOG

[FOG]

Originally Posted by IROC

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.

IROC,

Haven’t seen the movie, figured it was another whacked wet dream of reality by someone based on someone else’s fantasy. Was the torturer (not interrogator) paid by the hour or what? I guess neither I nor apparently Seahawk (I’m sure he’ll speak up for himself) can see any relevance from this movie than the Harry Potter or 2010 movies.

You still state interrogation is torture when it has not been defined as such until very recently by those with an agenda.

S/F, FOG

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by IROC

So, you haven't seen the movie, I take it?

Careful, Mike. You're on pretty shaky ground with this one.

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by FOG

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

Fog, please state where I have lied.

Before accusing people of lies or ignorance, answer me this- of all the “unlawful combatants” which as I last recall is still around 500 in Guantanomo (and how many are being held in secret establishments in Eastern Europe, Diego Garcia and so on is completely open to speculation) - how many have faced the Tribunal that was to be established?

The answer, to best of my knowledge, is ONE. And even then, only sort of. David Hicks, after 5 and a half years in Guantanomo, was released to custody in his home country after a deal was done which saw him plead guilty to guarding a Taliban tank. His release was brought about because of enormous electorate pressure in his home country to get him out, after more than 5 years without chagre or trial. He has since been released. This outcome also means that the legality of the Tribunal system established by the US military has not been tested under US or International law. A palatable political outcome all around.

Hicks would still be there, very likely, without that electoral pressure being applied on the Govt of an ally. So the faceless schmucks from Pakistan and Eqypt and god knows where else who are still rotting in Gitmo- tell me about the access they have to “due process”.

Before you go on to accuse of sympathizing with terrorists- if these people are terrorists- then try them, convict them and hang them, if thats what the law allows.

The status of “unlawful combatant” was specifically intended by the Bush govt to deny captives remedy, rights or status under the GCs, US law or international law.

[FOG]

Originally Posted by stuartj

Fog, please state where I have lied.

Before accusing people of lies or ignorance, answer me this- of all the “unlawful combatants” which as I last recall is still around 500 in Guantanomo (and how many are being held in secret establishments in Eastern Europe, Diego Garcia and so on is completely open to speculation) - how many have faced the Tribunal that was to be established?

The answer, to best of my knowledge, is ONE. And even then, only sort of. David Hicks, after 5 and a half years in Guantanomo, was released to custody in his home country after a deal was done which saw him plead guilty to guarding a Taliban tank. His release was brought about because of enormous electorate pressure in his home country to get him out, after more than 5 years without chagre or trial. He has since been released. This outcome also means that the legality of the Tribunal system established by the US military has not been tested under US or International law. A palatable political outcome all around.

Hicks would still be there, very likely, without that electoral pressure being applied on the Govt of an ally. So the faceless schmucks from Pakistan and Eqypt and god knows where else who are still rotting in Gitmo- tell me about the access they have to “due process”.

Before you go on to accuse of sympathizing with terrorists- if these people are terrorists- then try them, convict them and hang them, if thats what the law allows.

The status of “unlawful combatant” was specifically intended by the Bush govt to deny captives remedy, rights or status under the GCs, US law or international law.

Stuart,

You lied when you stated a detainee, whether classified as illegal or unlawful, has no reasonable expectation to expect that the U.S. to care or not kill him/her. The actual facts of the tens of thousands who have been detained (with the vast majority released) do not support this.

You obviously are stuck on the tribunal as if it is the only due process procedure while ignoring every other procedure, and one case. The Red Herring of due process is in Mr. Hicks case are that he was detained while on a battlefield in an illegal status and people want a civilian type legal proceeding which by history, tradition, treaty would be wholly inappropriate.

What I am hung up on is attempting to confer legal status and timelines on illegal combatants. You are operating under Orwellian double speak theory that illegal combatants should have that status. Place of origin is irrelevant, location and circumstance of capture is.

I do not know what the ratio of those detained and released quickly to those detained and retained in custody is, I do know that a large majority are released quickly.

I do want to use them to our maximum benefit, whatever that is.

S/F, FOG

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by FOG

Stuart,

You lied when you stated a detainee, whether classified as illegal or unlawful, has no reasonable expectation to expect that the U.S. to care or not kill him/her. The actual facts of the tens of thousands who have been detained (with the vast majority released) do not support this.

You obviously are stuck on the tribunal as if it is the only due process procedure while ignoring every other procedure, and one case. The Red Herring of due process is in Mr. Hicks case are that he was detained while on a battlefield in an illegal status and people want a civilian type legal proceeding which by history, tradition, treaty would be wholly inappropriate.

What I am hung up on is attempting to confer legal status and timelines on illegal combatants. You are operating under Orwellian double speak theory that illegal combatants should have that status. Place of origin is irrelevant, location and circumstance of capture is.

I do not know what the ratio of those detained and released quickly to those detained and retained in custody is, I do know that a large majority are released quickly.

I do want to use them to our maximum benefit, whatever that is.

S/F, FOG

Fog, I think you understand that I dont think the US goes out of it way to kill/harm prisoners en masse. But it has harmed prisoners, that is beyond doubt.

What ever you or I might think, neither of us can state what detainees might think or believe. I think it can be argued that the system of detention, the waterboarding, rendition is designed to precisely to make detainees believe their captors can do whatever they want. And that is my point. A training soldier does not have an expectation that his employer will kill him, that even undergoing waterboarding, his interests are being served. It seems reasonbale to assume no such expectation on behalf of a detainee.

It is not a lie to state this.

Hicks. I am not "stuck on" one case. There has only been ONE case. After all these years, ONE person has been charged, and a tribunal convened. What is "every other procedure" that you refer to What is it/they? The only other procedure is release without charge. There is no other procedure beyond the Military Tribunal, and that is yet ot be tested.

Check your facts, btw. Hicks was NOT detained on a battlefeild. He was captured by Nothern Allicance warlord, unarmed, travelling in a truck, and he was handed to US forces for money.

Its rich that you suggest I use Orwellian double speak. Who invented and codified the notion of "unlawful combatant". Bush's Ministry of Love must be thrilled with that. Yes, I am saying these detainees should have status. You are familair with the notion of habeus corpus? These people need to be/have to be detained on some basis or other. Some law needs to apply. The Bush govt created "unlawful combatant" specifically to deny these detainees GCs, US criminal law, International or any other.

Your own Supreme Court has ruled this "unconstituational" in 2006.

"Place of origin is irrelevant, location and circumstance of capture is." You should read up on rendition. You might start here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam_Rapito_affair

I imagine a new President will wish to rid themselves of this Bush albatross very quickly.