Why Won't The UN Stop This Country Using Torture?

[Mr Manifesto]

Maybe it's because they have the veto (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s962037.htm).

Land of the brave and free, indeed.

[WildCat]

Oh, please. That lawyer is full of s**t. here's a description from prisoners who have been released fron Gitmo, from an anti-war site, (http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/10/30/threeafg.html) so you don't think it's biased.

The three men, the first prisoners to speak about their arrest and imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay, also described a daily routine of football games with the guards and prayer sessions.

But he was then asked if he was angry at the American soldiers who had arrested him. “I don’t mind,” he smiled. “They took my old clothes and gave me new clothes. They treated us well. We had enough food to eat. We could pray and wash with water five times a day. We had the Koran and read it all the time.”
Oh, the horror. Torture indeed. :rolleyes:

[Mr Manifesto]

If we find out ten years from now that the reports were correct after all, remember... you heard it here first!

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by WildCat
Oh, please. That lawyer is full of s**t. here's a description from prisoners who have been released fron Gitmo, from an anti-war site, (http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/10/30/threeafg.html) so you don't think it's biased.


Oh, the horror. Torture indeed. :rolleyes:

The site you've linked to describes the release of several elderly people who the US obviously weren't interested in. Any reports from those the US still have in custody? What? What's that? You don't?

[Mr Manifesto]

Meanwhile, what cannot be debated is the US's (specifically, the CIA) complicity in torture by handing prisoners to countries who use torture (http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1038895,00.html) in the full knowledge that they will be tortured.

Or, as was quoted in the Washington Post of an unnamed US official: "We don't kick the s4!t out of them. We send them to other countries so they can kick the s4!t out of them."

This, O Lord, is the country taking the moral high ground with brutally repressive regimes like Afghanistan and Iraq.

[P.S.A.]

"Specific allegations of prisoner torture were first published in the Washington Post in December last year.

According to the paper, interrogators from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had been subjecting Taleban and al-Qaeda suspects to "stress and duress" techniques of dubious legality. "


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2825575.stm

This article of course doesn't disprove the 'cats one. But Wildcat's doesn't disprove this one either. Both types of treatment could exist simultaneously at different times or locations within one area of interest... however, one type of treatment should be expected from the world's policeman, and one should never be tolerated by it. The important thing is that there are accusations of torture. And 2 people are dead. And we don't even know on what grounds these people were being held. And that should be a cause for worry, not cheap point scoring by posting links that other people aren't dead, or weren't treated badly.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
"Specific allegations of prisoner torture were first published in the Washington Post in December last year.

According to the paper, interrogators from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had been subjecting Taleban and al-Qaeda suspects to "stress and duress" techniques of dubious legality. "


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2825575.stm

This article of course doesn't disprove the 'cats one. But Wildcat's doesn't disprove this one either. Both types of treatment could exist simultaneously at different times or locations within one area of interest... however, one type of treatment should be expected from the world's policeman, and one should never be tolerated by it. The important thing is that there are accusations of torture. And 2 people are dead. And we don't even know on what grounds these people were being held. And that should be a cause for worry, not cheap point scoring by posting links that other people aren't dead, or weren't treated badly.
That article is 7 months old, surely there would have been some follow up by now if the deaths were homicides?

"Stress and Duress" - nothing police here don't do while interrogating suspects, why should Gitmo detainees be any different?

The site you've linked to describes the release of several elderly people who the US obviously weren't interested in. Any reports from those the US still have in custody? What? What's that? You don't?

Elderly?
The third man, Jan Mohammad, 34, was taken prisoner during a battle for Kunduz in northern Afghanistan. He said that he had been forced to join the Taleban. “I didn’t commit a single crime,” he said. “The Taleban forced me to join their ranks. I was never truly a Taleban fighter. “In each village a number of people had to join, so I went with them, then surrendered. The Americans took me to Kandahar, questioned me, put something over my eyes and took me to Guantanamo Bay. Their behaviour was good. During the past 15 days we played football together and they were sad when we left.”

Nobody has reports from the prisoners still in custody, including the lawyer in your link making wild accusations w/o any evidence, names or sources. But it is telling that of the prisoners who have been released, none has reported mistreatment. They were there, you know. Prisoners do know what goes on in prisons, their not in isolation from each other.

[Mr Manifesto]

But the US aren't going to torture people who don't know anything- and therefore will be released to tell the media how they weren't tortured.

Put it another way. You get arrested in the US, the media can find out how you're being treated. Why do you think there's a media blackout on Gitmo?

[Mr Manifesto]

Concerns raised, America ignores (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2760301.stm)

"In ten years or so we'll read the truth, but by then it'll only be so much paper"- Dead Kennedys.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Put it another way. You get arrested in the US, the media can find out how you're being treated. Why do you think there's a media blackout on Gitmo?

Could be a number of reasons, but you seem intent on only one. The US wants to keep terrorists uncertain about who it has in custody, so that they don't have confidence in what information has or has not been compromised. That's certainly a part of why they're keeping things hush-hush. They also probably don't want a lot of spurious accusations of torture, and those are bound to surface, considering Al Quaeda training manuals specifically instruct members to make accusations of torture (regardless of their veracity) if they are captured. So it's really not so simple, and you can only ascribe dark motives if you KNOW that torture was happening. Which you don't at this point. Calling for more openness is reasonable, but merely repeating unsubstantiated accusations as if they were true doesn't really accomplish anything.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
But the US aren't going to torture people who don't know anything- and therefore will be released to tell the media how they weren't tortured.

Put it another way. You get arrested in the US, the media can find out how you're being treated. Why do you think there's a media blackout on Gitmo?
But how would they know if they're innocent w/o torturing them, if that's standard practice? If they "knew" they were innocent why take them to Gitmo in the first place? There's been at least 35 prisoners released (http://www.iht.com/articles/99822.html) from Gitmo so far, while it wasn't pleasant there none have reported the torture you described. And it is common for prisoners to attempt suicide - people hang themselves in jail for a drunk driving charges and much less, this is why they remove your shoe laces before they lock you up.

I think the media is barred from Gitmo because they don't want the prisoners communicating w/ other terrorists, but I don't see a conspiracy behind every tree...

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by WildCat

But how would they know if they're innocent w/o torturing them, if that's standard practice? If they "knew" they were innocent why take them to Gitmo in the first place? There's been at least 35 prisoners released (http://www.iht.com/articles/99822.html) from Gitmo so far, while it wasn't pleasant there none have reported the torture you described. And it is common for prisoners to attempt suicide - people hang themselves in jail for a drunk driving charges and much less, this is why they remove your shoe laces before they lock you up.

I think the media is barred from Gitmo because they don't want the prisoners communicating w/ other terrorists, but I don't see a conspiracy behind every tree...

It sounds like in a few of those cases, it was 'arrest first, ask questions later'. I don't think the US would torture at the drop of a hat. This is a country that is concerned with it's PR image, unlike some countries that use torture. They wouldn't want to beat someone's feet and find out later that they weren't even the friend of a friend of a terrorist.

But once they know someone's a person of interest, and that person isn't giving with the goods, well, then the fun begins.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Could be a number of reasons, but you seem intent on only one. The US wants to keep terrorists uncertain about who it has in custody, so that they don't have confidence in what information has or has not been compromised. That's certainly a part of why they're keeping things hush-hush. They also probably don't want a lot of spurious accusations of torture, and those are bound to surface, considering Al Quaeda training manuals specifically instruct members to make accusations of torture (regardless of their veracity) if they are captured. So it's really not so simple, and you can only ascribe dark motives if you KNOW that torture was happening. Which you don't at this point. Calling for more openness is reasonable, but merely repeating unsubstantiated accusations as if they were true doesn't really accomplish anything.

This is a joke, right?

"Hey, has anyone seen Nizar lately?"
"No, not since that American raid on the Taliban training camp."
"You don't suppose they have him in custody, do you?"
"Nah, they'd say so on CNN if they did..."

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
But once they know someone's a person of interest, and that person isn't giving with the goods, well, then the fun begins.
Only you have no evidence of this!

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by WildCat

Only you have no evidence of this!

It's a plausable scenario. The US is concerned with her image on the world stage. The US took a lot of people in custody all at once, and it isn't too much of a stretch to assume that they weren't ALL terrorists. Some preliminary sorting had to be done first.

As for evidence of torture after the preliminary sorting, you're right, I don't have evidence. Just the prisoners yelling through the wire, the complaints by organisations like Amnesty International which the US is ignoring, and other unproved accusations. But like I said, if the US has nothing to hide, why not let these organistations do some investigating? Hmm?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

This is a joke, right?


No, it's not. I don't think it's a complete explanation, but it's a factor. Communications between cells may be quite spotty, so it's quite possible that a cell in one country wouldn't hear that a member was arrested half-way around the globe if it never made it onto the news. And since a good number did escape and may still be hiding out in Afghanistan (which doesn't exactly have a phone booth on every corner) it's also concievable that members who were not captured would still end up unexpectedly out of contact for extended periods. And the uncertainty that could cause is a good thing.

There's some cost-benefit tradeoff here (I mentioned some potential benefits and there may be others, costs being a rise in suspicions like you have), and I'm not going to claim that I know they made the right choice regarding this tradeoff. But it's foolish to assume that there are no potential benefits, or that they're necessarily up to something nefarious. The Bush administration is secretive on just about everything. On some issues it's quite likely that it is to cover up something unsavory, on others it's probably just paranoia, and on others perhaps just habbit, but you have no specific knowlege that this is a case where the secrecy is covering up anything unsavory. Calls for more openness are reasonable, and perhaps more openness would be best. But unsubstantiated accusations of torture don't really accomplish anything.

[EdipisReks]

:slp:

[Mr Manifesto]

So, Ziggurat, would you like to go on record as saying there is no torture going on at Gitmo? I'm happy to say it is. If you put your money where your mouth is, one of us would have to be wrong.

[Mr Manifesto]

"...conditions at Camp Delta reveal a more sophisticated form (of torture)." (http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=1308)

How Bush Kicked the (expletive) out of the Geneva Conventions (http://www.globeandmail.com/backgrounder/iraqcrisis/pages/c_geneva.html)

Children in Guantanamo Bay (http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/04/us042403.htm)

The more I read, the more I love America.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Maybe it's because they have the veto (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s962037.htm).

Land of the brave and free, indeed.

Of course one would expect terrorists to claim they were tortured. Evidence please.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Maybe it's because they have the veto (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s962037.htm).

Land of the brave and free, indeed.

Leave aside the questionableness of the specific accusation for the moment. Certainly the USA has used torture from time to time.

When has the UN ever stopped any country from using torture? Ever? Anywhere?

If you want a list of countries using torture, you can get one from Amnesty International. That list is also the list of countries that the UN has not stopped from using torture.

By the way, I was anti-UN long before it became fashionable here in the USA. It has always been an organization for legitimizing tyranny.

[schplurg]

From one of Mr. M's links:
"Secretary Rumsfeld called those detained at Guantanamo the 'worst of the worst,'" said Jo Becker, child rights advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "It's hard to believe that a 13 year old could fit that category."
Yes, hard to believe for us here in the U.S.. not so hard to believe if you live in the Middle East. 15 year olds do carry guns, belong to militias, and they do kill people.

So, Ziggurat, would you like to go on record as saying there is no torture going on at Gitmo? I'm happy to say it is. If you put your money where your mouth is, one of us would have to be wrong.
Well I'd say Ziggurat has the right idea. He's smart enough not to commit to a stance that he can't defend, at least not absolutely.

Maybe these "children" are better off here than back home with the ******** who exploit them? Than again, maybe not. I don't know and neither do you. SHOULD we know? Perhaps, but that's another story. The fact is, we don't, and anyone stating in an absolute fashion that they know what's going on is fooling themselves.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by schplurg

Maybe these "children" are better off here than back home with the ******** who exploit them? Than again, maybe not. I don't know and neither do you. SHOULD we know? Perhaps, but that's another story. The fact is, we don't, and anyone stating in an absolute fashion that they know what's going on is fooling themselves.

So you're going to avoid the moral question of whether it is right or not to illegally detain children by saying 'is it better to have them in Camp Delta than back at home'? For starters, your question is a false dichotomy. If you were concerned about the children (you aren't, but if you were), you would at least examine the possiblity of accepting them as a refugee, since it's clear -to you at least- that they're being exploited in their home country.

Maybe I am fooling myself by stating that the Americans are using torture. So why can't I be proven wrong- by allowing people access to the camp to see what really is happening?

[crackmonkey]

Isn't this supposed to be a skeptic's site? You have the zealous fervor of a true believer, Mr. M.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Isn't this supposed to be a skeptic's site? You have the zealous fervor of a true believer, Mr. M.

Yes, I'm a true believer that asks for evidence that the US is humanely imprisoning people. There can't be many like me around.

[crackmonkey]

I believe it's customary to have allegations and sources checked first for accuracy and veracity... do you have any evidence for your claims?
Or do you (as I suspect) prefer the 'Are you still beating your wife?' approach?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I believe it's customary to have allegations and sources checked first for accuracy and veracity... do you have any evidence for your claims?
Or do you (as I suspect) prefer the 'Are you still beating your wife?' approach?

What are you talking about?

The Washington Post has already gotten statements from people stating that the US sends prisoners to countries that use torture, specifically so that those prisoners can be tortured.

We know, from the various links above, that organisations and individuals have concerns about the US using torture, and that the US will not let these people check for themselves that they aren't. Considering that every other prisoner in the US is allowed to be examined to see that they are not being mistreated, why is it different at Camp Delta? Who's the true believer?

[egslim]

Frankly, the only reason for torture I can think of is because of hate. Of course that is possible. But when it comes to intelligence gathering (like the CIA does) there are far more effective means. Torture often makes people tell you what you want to hear, or they harden in their resistance. It can also leave visible traces. Drugs work faster, the information is more likely to be accurate and it doesn't show.

[Kodiak]

Because the U.N. is utterly impotent without the U.S.?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Because the U.N. is utterly impotent without the U.S.?
It's like a relationship with an abusive partner; carnt live with 'em, carnt live without 'em...

Anyway, more stories of the CIA behaving badly (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1055628,00.html). Of course, the plural of anecdote is not data, but have we any basis to believe this person's treatment is unique?

[Tony]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Anyway, more stories of the CIA behaving badly (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1055628,00.html). Of course, the plural of anecdote is not data, but have we any basis to believe this person's treatment is unique?


A muslim's account of events, printed in the Guardian. Thats almost as biased as al-jazeera.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tony



A muslim's account of events, printed in the Guardian. Thats almost as biased as al-jazeera.

To be fair, though an account's source might be a cause for suspicion or skepticism, it does not automatically invalidate the report. The account could still be completely accurate and truthful.

That said, past bias has been known to pour from both muslim accounts of U.S. actions as well as The Guardian...

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kodiak


To be fair, though an account's source might be a cause for suspicion or skepticism, it does not automatically invalidate the report. The account could still be completely accurate and truthful.

That said, past bias has been known to pour from both muslim accounts of U.S. actions as well as The Guardian...

True, but precedent has to be taken into account.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by egslim
But when it comes to intelligence gathering (like the CIA does) there are far more effective means. Torture often makes people tell you what you want to hear, or they harden in their resistance.

I have to agree with this. There is no guarantee that the information will be accurate, or that it won't even be counter productive.

I'm reminded of some information I came across during a discussion on the use of the Atomic bombs during world war 2. After Hiroshima, the Japanese tortured a recently captured American pilot, who claimed the US had a whole bunch of nuclear bombs. That false infomation may have helped the Japanese end the war sooner than they may have. (Note I did say "may".)

It is because torture is an unreliable source of information that I believe that it is not a tool in widespread use by the CIA. (That isn't to say that an occasional CIA agent doen't "cross the line" occasionally, but their actions probably aren't sanctioned, and would in fact be a criminal matter.)

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Yes, I'm a true believer that asks for evidence that the US is humanely imprisoning people. There can't be many like me around.

And you claim I backtrack. You went from claiming there WAS torture going on (along with a host of nefarious methods of coverup) to demanding that the US prove that there isn't torture going on. That's a definite shift (in the right direction, I might add). But you're not admitting that, because you don't want to admit that your earlier accusations were mere speculation with little evidence. I have little problem with calls for openness on the grounds that one doesn't want to merely take the military's word for it that torture isn't happening, and I agree with it to an extent. But that's not how you started this thread.

As pointed out, I'm not going to claim that torture was not happening. Rather, I'm claiming that the evidence of that so far is highly questionable. Furthermore, there's absolutely NO evidence that torture is an official policy at Gitmo, meaning that your speculation that the press are denied access BECAUSE of torture is ridiculous. There are other possibilities, even if torture is happening, that you seem too blinded to even consider. For example, maybe the press are denied access for the reasons I listed earlier, and the local personel take advantage of that secrecy to torture prisoners against the orders from Washington. I have no evidence for this scenario, and neither do you. But if you want to spend your time speculating on what MIGHT be happening, at least have the intellectual honesty to speculate beyond your narrow anti-Bush prejudice and consider more than one possible interpretation.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Mr. Manifesto:
The Washington Post has already gotten statements from people stating that the US sends prisoners to countries that use torture, specifically so that those prisoners can be tortured.

I'm sure if "The Washington Post" put it's mind to it, it could also get statements from people to the effect that the US government is actively collaborating with aliens in the abduction of thousands of it's own citizens.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


I'm sure if "The Washington Post" put it's mind to it, it could also get statements from people to the effect that the US government is actively collaborating with aliens in the abduction of thousands of it's own citizens.

If the Washington Post set its mind to it, they will certainly get statements to the effect that G.W. Bush really exists. Is this, then, also questionable?

What I mean to say is: don´t overdo your generalizations.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by egslim
Frankly, the only reason for torture I can think of is because of hate. Of course that is possible. But when it comes to intelligence gathering (like the CIA does) there are far more effective means. Torture often makes people tell you what you want to hear, or they harden in their resistance. It can also leave visible traces. Drugs work faster, the information is more likely to be accurate and it doesn't show.

The CIA made some press releases, which I'm trying to find now, tthat perpetuated the myth that 'torture isn't effective'. They would like you to think that torture is a coarse way to extract information, when more sophisticated means are available. But the drugs are all so much Tom Clancy bollocks.

You don't have to take my word for it, though. Go on the record as saying you don't believe there is any torture going on at Gitmo. And promise, if it turns out that you're wrong, that you won't be a dupe in future.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


And you claim I backtrack. You went from claiming there WAS torture going on (along with a host of nefarious methods of coverup) to demanding that the US prove that there isn't torture going on. That's a definite shift (in the right direction, I might add). But you're not admitting that, because you don't want to admit that your earlier accusations were mere speculation with little evidence. I have little problem with calls for openness on the grounds that one doesn't want to merely take the military's word for it that torture isn't happening, and I agree with it to an extent. But that's not how you started this thread.

As pointed out, I'm not going to claim that torture was not happening. Rather, I'm claiming that the evidence of that so far is highly questionable. Furthermore, there's absolutely NO evidence that torture is an official policy at Gitmo, meaning that your speculation that the press are denied access BECAUSE of torture is ridiculous. There are other possibilities, even if torture is happening, that you seem too blinded to even consider. For example, maybe the press are denied access for the reasons I listed earlier, and the local personel take advantage of that secrecy to torture prisoners against the orders from Washington. I have no evidence for this scenario, and neither do you. But if you want to spend your time speculating on what MIGHT be happening, at least have the intellectual honesty to speculate beyond your narrow anti-Bush prejudice and consider more than one possible interpretation.

You come up with the most convolouted scenarios to explain why the press aren't allowed access, and overlook the obvious. I believe the US is torturing prisoners at Gitmo, if not to extract information, then as vengeance for 9/11. The US has a history of using torture in the past that hasn't even been officially acknowledged (like their use of torture in Guatemala, Chile, and other countries in the Americas). If she doesn't even admit what she's done in the past, what idiot would think she isn't continuing the practice today?

[egslim]

You don't have to take my word for it, though. Go on the record as saying you don't believe there is any torture going on at Gitmo. And promise, if it turns out that you're wrong, that you won't be a dupe in future.

Well, I can hardly say that, since I don't know. Neither do you... :rolleyes: . But if - and it's an if - people are being tortured at Gizmo then it is being done out of hate and or sadism by the guards and/or supervisors. I don't believe for one minute that the modern CIA would set up an interrogation centre which uses torture. Not because of ethics, but because far better methods are available.
Do you really believe torture is as effective as drugs are? Segnosaur has already given one example where information obtained by torture was false. There are many similar examples from the German Gestapo or Japanese Kempetai during WWII. Please answer this: Why would the CIA prefer torture over drugs?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by egslim


Well, I can hardly say that, since I don't know. Neither do you... :rolleyes: . But if - and it's an if - people are being tortured at Gizmo then it is being done out of hate and or sadism by the guards and/or supervisors. I don't believe for one minute that the modern CIA would set up an interrogation centre which uses torture. Not because of ethics, but because far better methods are available.
Do you really believe torture is as effective as drugs are? Segnosaur has already given one example where information obtained by torture was false. There are many similar examples from the German Gestapo or Japanese Kempetai during WWII. Please answer this: Why would the CIA prefer torture over drugs?

Segnosaur himself admits his info is dodgy. Where is the evidence that drugs are more effective?

If you can't find that, look at the history. CIA have used it before, don't acknowledge it, good chance they're using it now.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

The US has a history of using torture in the past that hasn't even been officially acknowledged (like their use of torture in Guatemala, Chile, and other countries in the Americas). If she doesn't even admit what she's done in the past, what idiot would think she isn't continuing the practice today?

Those were very different situations. Gitmo is run directly by the military, whatever the role the CIA may play in the interrogations themselves. It may not be "public" in the sense that the press doesn't have access to it, but there are a lot of military personel circulating through there. That's NOT a good situation to play conspiracy games, because if systematic torture is happening (as opposed to a few guards commiting it individually and sporadically) it's almost certain to come out, and the people who did it can be directly implicated. In central america, the CIA was opperating covertly. They did terrible things because they thought they could get away with it, that nobody would be able to tie it directly back to them, that only the locals would be blamed for the torture. And that's a key point: they never thought they could keep the torture itself secret, only their involvement. There's nobody else BUT the U.S. to pin the blame on here for any torture. In other words, even if the CIA has not changed fundamentally, the situation itself IS fundamentally different at Gitmo. But you'll ignore the difference, since that just gets in the way of your preconceived ideas about how terrible the US government is.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Chaos:
If the Washington Post set its mind to it, they will certainly get statements to the effect that G.W. Bush really exists. Is this, then, also questionable?

Different claims require different standards of proof. We don't need statements from people to the effect George Bush exists, since it's self evident the man does exist. OTOH claims that the US knowingly sends prisoners to countries where torture is commonplace, for the purpose of said prisoners being tortured, require a heavier burden of proof than personal statements.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


Different claims require different standards of proof. We don't need statements from people to the effect George Bush exists, since it's self evident the man does exist. OTOH claims that the US knowingly sends prisoners to countries where torture is commonplace, for the purpose of said prisoners being tortured, require a heavier burden of proof than personal statements.

You mean like here (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/12/us1227.htm)?

Or here (http://www.skepticfiles.org/socialis/usdeaths.htm)?

Or here (http://www.afn.org/~iguana/archives/1999_04/19990405.html)?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Maybe it's because they have the veto (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s962037.htm).

Land of the brave and free, indeed.

Bingo! That Veto power is very significant.

The UN was designed to be a weak organization that could not do much of anything unless there would be a good bit of support for it.

[Dorian Gray]

Some of you say that the people who claim prisoners are being tortured are wrong because they have no proof.

Where else have we acted on something recently despite having no real proof? Where was that....... um....

So why not use the same logic? We can just storm the prison and then have David Kay look around and tell us if and when torture was going on.

Perhaps he will uncover that there are just a few people being tortured now, but there are definite plans or programs to torture more in the future. Perhaps he will find out that the US has the capability to torture small amounts of prisoners quickly, or that there is documentation proving that the US shipped prisoners to other countries to have them tortured. Perhaps he would discover hidden caches of tortured prisoners.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Crossbow

Bingo! That Veto power is very significant.


Not in the current context. The claim that the UN doesn't stop the US from using torture because we have the veto is ridiculous. As already pointed out, the UN has never stopped any country from using torture, veto or not. Such logic doesn't matter in the face of a determined propagandist, though.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Not in the current context. The claim that the UN doesn't stop the US from using torture because we have the veto is ridiculous. As already pointed out, the UN has never stopped any country from using torture, veto or not. Such logic doesn't matter in the face of a determined propagandist, though.

He does, however, have the point that, if the UN wanted to stop the U.S. from using torture, it could not because the U.S. could veto that proposal.

One more reason for drastical reform of the UN.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Not in the current context. The claim that the UN doesn't stop the US from using torture because we have the veto is ridiculous. As already pointed out, the UN has never stopped any country from using torture, veto or not. Such logic doesn't matter in the face of a determined propagandist, though.

Er, OK.

But the original topic of this thread was directed to one specific country (the USA) as opposed to all countries throughout the world, and that I was my response was written in the way that it was.

But as someone once recently said, "Such logic doesn't matter in the face of a determined propagandist, though".

[Tony]

Originally posted by Chaos


He does, however, have the point that, if the UN wanted to stop the U.S. from using torture, it could not because the U.S. could veto that proposal.

One more reason for drastical reform of the UN.


Im glad the chances of that are almost 0.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Tony



Im glad the chances of that are almost 0.


The chances for what exactly, and why are you glad of that?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Chaos



The chances for what exactly, and why are you glad of that?


The chances of the UN being "reformed". But lets not get ahead of ourselves, what kind of "reforms" are you talking about? I might agree with you.

[egslim]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Segnosaur himself admits his info is dodgy. Where is the evidence that drugs are more effective?

If you can't find that, look at the history. CIA have used it before, don't acknowledge it, good chance they're using it now.

Well, what I found is this: http://www.kimsoft.com/2000/kub_ix.htm
The same principle holds for other fears: sustained long enough, a strong fear of anything vague or unknown induces regression, whereas the materialization of the fear, the infliction of some form of punishment, is likely to come as a relief. The subject finds that he can hold out, and his resistances are strengthened. "In general, direct physical brutality creates only resentment, hostility, and further defiance."
The threat of death has often been found to be worse than useless. It "has the highest position in law as a defense, but in many interrogation situations it is a highly ineffective threat. Many prisoners, in fact, have refused to yield in the face of such threats who have subsequently been 'broken' by other procedures."

And:
Interrogatees who are withholding but who feel qualms of guilt and a secret desire to yield are likely to become intractable if made to endure pain. The reason is that they can then interpret the pain as punishment and hence as expiation. There are also persons who enjoy pain and its anticipation and who will keep back information that they might otherwise divulge if they are given reason to expect that withholding will result in the punishment that they want. Persons of considerable moral or intellectual stature often find in pain inflicted by others a confirmation of the belief that they are in the hands of inferiors, and their resolve not to submit is strengthened.

Several other techniques are described as being far more effective than torture. It seems I have overestimated the effectiveness of drugs. However, drugs are according to the article more effective than torture, especially in combination with other techniques.
So you have no credible evidence, no logical motive and only a very poor window of opportunity for torture due to the circulation of military personel.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by WildCat
Oh, please. That lawyer is full of s**t. here's a description from prisoners who have been released fron Gitmo, from an anti-war site, (http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/10/30/threeafg.html) so you don't think it's biased.


Oh, the horror. Torture indeed. :rolleyes:

I have no position on this one way or the other, but keep in mind that in virtually every case of detention and POW camps there is a wide range of treatment of prisoners, and often most prisoners have no idea what others are going through or not going through.

The vast majority of American POWs were well treated by the Nazis, but not all were, a small fraction were tortured.

The idea that America is running a large scale torture camp anywhere is absurd, but that a small number of select individuals would be tortured for some reason is not.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Segnosaur himself admits his info is dodgy. Where is the evidence that drugs are more effective?


Why exactly do you think my info is 'dodgy'?

The story of the tortured pilot seems to appear many times in the discussion of WW2, from some fairly mainstream sources, so I have confidence that that part of the story is true. I did say 'may' in my original posting, but that was related to the effect of the false information; nobody knows if the Japanese would have surrendered if this pilot hadn't indicated that the US had more bombs.

See: http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/08/05/1060064179100.htm


One of the great tales of World War II concerns an American fighter pilot named Marcus McDilda who was shot down on August 8 and brutally interrogated about the atomic bombs. He knew nothing, but under torture he "confessed" that the US had 100 more nuclear weapons and planned to destroy Tokyo "in the next few days". The war minister informed the cabinet of this grim news - but still adamantly opposed surrender.


http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/08/05/nyt.kristof/

[Mr Manifesto]

One of the great tales of World War II concerns an American fighter pilot named Marcus McDilda who was shot down on August 8 and brutally interrogated about the atomic bombs. He knew nothing, but under torture he "confessed" that the US had 100 more nuclear weapons and planned to destroy Tokyo "in the next few days". The war minister informed the cabinet of this grim news - but still adamantly opposed surrender.

This passage, besides being printed in the Age and CNN, has been printed almost verbatim in hundreds of blogs on the 'net. Yet no primary source. I've submitted it to snopes. Maybe it's true, but I notice the phrase 'great tales'. Lest we be credulous.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


This passage, besides being printed in the Age and CNN, has been printed almost verbatim in hundreds of blogs on the 'net. Yet no primary source. I've submitted it to snopes. Maybe it's true, but I notice the phrase 'great tales'. Lest we be credulous.

So you are skeptical about this story, however the story you posted you are defending as 100% true. Heard of hypocrisy?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron


So you are skeptical about this story, however the story you posted you are defending as 100% true. Heard of hypocrisy?

Nice try. You haven't read the rest of my posts, so I'll reiterate.

FACT: The US has been complicit in torture
FACT: The CIA has previously used torture, and not only hasn't apologised, but hasn't admitted it.
FACT: There are groups concerned that the US is using torture on Guantanamo.
FACT: The US is not allowing anyone to verify that this isn't the case, something she doesn't do with other prisoners.

It would be very simple to prove that I am wrong, but the US is doing nothing to show that I am wrong. You can hardly say that it would be a waste of time, or prohibitively expensive for the US to allow the detainees to be interviewed. When you consider the US's history, coupled with her current actions, there's a strong possibility she is using torture.

As for Seg's story... well, like I said, no primary evidence, everyone who relates the story uses the same passage, has the phrase 'great tale'. You'd have to be an idiot to accept the story on that basis alone. If the story is true, I assume snopes will be able to verify it. I certainly am not able to. Perhaps you can find out if the story is true or not. Or would you prefer to sit on your keyboard and shoot your mouth off instead?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Nice try. You haven't read the rest of my posts, so I'll reiterate.

FACT: The US has been complicit in torture

So has Japan.

FACT: The CIA has previously used torture, and not only hasn't apologised, but hasn't admitted it.
Don't know the facts on that.

FACT: There are groups concerned that the US is using torture on Guantanamo.
So? The are groups concerned that people are not muslim enough.

FACT: The US is not allowing anyone to verify that this isn't the case, something she doesn't do with other prisoners.
These are not like other prisoners.

It would be very simple to prove that I am wrong, but the US is doing nothing to show that I am wrong. You can hardly say that it would be a waste of time, or prohibitively expensive for the US to allow the detainees to be interviewed. When you consider the US's history, coupled with her current actions, there's a strong possibility she is using torture.
How many large scale torture camps are there in US history?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron

So has Japan.

Don't know the facts on that.

So? The are groups concerned that people are not muslim enough.

These are not like other prisoners.

How many large scale torture camps are there in US history?

You're answering questions with non-sequitirs. Amusing, but adding nothing to the debate.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by egslim

Several other techniques are described as being far more effective than torture. It seems I have overestimated the effectiveness of drugs. However, drugs are according to the article more effective than torture, especially in combination with other techniques.
So you have no credible evidence, no logical motive and only a very poor window of opportunity for torture due to the circulation of military personel.

Selective quoting! Like it. You forgot:

Everyone is aware that people react very differently to pain. The reason, apparently, is not a physical difference in the intensity of the sensation itself. Lawrence E. Hinkle observes, "The sensation of pain seems to be roughly equal in all men, that is to say, all people have approximately the same threshold at which they begin to feel pain, and when carefully graded stimuli are applied to them, their estimates of severity are approximately the same....

Yet... when men are very highly motivated... they have been known to carry out rather complex tasks while enduring the most intense pain." He also states, "In general, it appears that whatever may be the role of the constitutional endowment in determining the reaction to pain, it is a much less important determinant than is the attitude of the man who experiences the pain." (7)

The wide range of individual reactions to pain may be partially explicable in terms of early conditioning. The person whose first encounters with pain were frightening and intense may be more violently affected by its later infliction than one whose original experiences were mild. Or the reverse may be true, and the man whose childhood familiarized him with pain may dread it less, and react less, than one whose distress is heightened by fear of the unknown. The individual remains the determinant.

It has been plausibly suggested that, whereas pain inflicted on a person from outside himself may actually focus or intensify his will to resist, his resistance is likelier to be sapped by pain which he seems to inflict upon himself. "In the simple torture situation the contest is one between the individual and his tormentor (.... and he can frequently endure).

When the individual is told to stand at attention for long periods, an intervening factor is introduced. The immediate source of pain is not the interrogator but the victim himself. The motivational strength of the individual is likely to exhaust itself in this internal encounter.... As long as the subject remains standing, he is attributing to his captor the power to do something worse to him, but there is actually no showdown of the ability of the interrogator to do so." (4)


The message seems to be 'if you're going to use pain, make sure you do it right'. Pain has hardly been discounted as a form of interrogating as per your link.

But you're right about overestimating the effectiveness of drugs.


"No credible evidence?" Just the history that it's been done before. It's easy to prove that it isn't happening, so why not prove it?
"No logical motive"? You mean, like vengeance for 9/11, "Where's Osama"? Things like that?
"No window of opportunity"? No, the camp is just secluded from the outside world... no possible chance for anyone to conduct torture there.

Try again.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


You're answering questions with non-sequitirs. Amusing, but adding nothing to the debate.

Of course not, it only questions your so-called Facts.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Of course not, it only questions your so-called Facts.

Nice bit of spin, but you haven't questioned anything at all.

For example, you say Japan has been complicit in torture, as if that means anything. Japan has admitted to her crimes (though she hasn't apolgised to the soldiers tortured), and hasn't been in a position to conduct torture since due to the terms of surrender after WWII. Non-sequitur. What does it matter that there are groups that are concerned that people are not Muslim enough? We are talking about basic human rights issues, not abour religion. Non-sequitur. The prisoners in Gitmo are like other prisoners- unless you have some special Grammatron definition. Even if you do, your personal beliefs have no bearing on reality. Non-sequitur. The number of large-scale torture camps in US history has nothing to do with what is happening in Gitmo. You may as well ask, 'how many camps where people have been designtated, at the same time, enemy combatants and non-combatants, as the result of a terrorist attack is US history'?

Non-sequitur.

Hey, I understand you're upset. You've believed all your life that your government is on the side of the 'good guys' and would never intentionally do anything evil. Sure, they'd make boneheaded mistakes or go off and do something half-cocked, but never anything systematically evil. That was what the Nazi's did, and your country beat them, right? Unfortunately, though, it looks like that is exactly what is happening right now, and Americans don't seem to be doing anything about it.

[Larspeart]

I see nothing wrong with the use of torture in a military setting as a means of gaining intelligence from captured enemy soldier.

AND, I also think we are being WAY too gentle.

Soldiers and government funded terrorists are VOLUNTARY combatants who surrender their right to die and/or be tortured in the event of capture.

No US soldier believes a rogue state or terrorist group is going to follow the Geneva Conventions (spit), so why should everyone else expect us to do the same?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Larspeart
I see nothing wrong with the use of torture in a military setting as a means of gaining intelligence from captured enemy soldier.


I do, for a few reasons. First, we can't prosecute others under international law if our own troops do the same thing. Second, information obtained from torture is not very reliable. And third, torture damages the people commanded to carry it out - they're likely to end up using it as a first means rather than a last, they may extend its use to non-combatants or as a means of punishment rather than simply intelligence gathering, etc. As a purely practical matter it's simply not beneficial enough to justify the costs, even if you're not concerned about the morality.


No US soldier believes a rogue state or terrorist group is going to follow the Geneva Conventions (spit), so why should everyone else expect us to do the same?

Because we want to be able to prosecute them for doing so. Because our allies want us to abide by the Geneva convention, which we have signed. Because we want to encourage opposing forces to surrender rather than fight. Because it's simply not beneficial or effective. And because America does stand for something, and torture goes against what we stand for.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Larspeart
I see nothing wrong with the use of torture in a military setting as a means of gaining intelligence from captured enemy soldier.

AND, I also think we are being WAY too gentle.

Soldiers and government funded terrorists are VOLUNTARY combatants who surrender their right to die and/or be tortured in the event of capture.

No US soldier believes a rogue state or terrorist group is going to follow the Geneva Conventions (spit), so why should everyone else expect us to do the same?

What is like to live life without a conscious?

[Larspeart]

I don't know. Easy?

:rolleyes:


Anyone who is willing to strap a bomb to his chest shouldn't care if he has to go through torture first.

Muslim extremist = HUGE hypocrite.

Just think of all the EXTRA glory Allah will bestow on them after they endure all the torture.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Larspeart
I don't know. Easy?

:rolleyes:


Anyone who is willing to strap a bomb to his chest shouldn't care if he has to go through torture first.

Muslim extremist = HUGE hypocrite.

Just think of all the EXTRA glory Allah will bestow on them after they endure all the torture.

Great argument. Except... wait! We don't know if they are all bomb-strapping Muslim extremists or not. In fact at least one of them (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/29/1059244588374.html) has only made the mistake of fighting for the Taliban- with guns and everything. Just how Americans like it (so they can be bombed from a height, out of range of the weapons).

David Hicks has no access to legal counsel. He isn't having the most basic of his legal rights seen to. There is no evidence that he is a terrorist.

So, the US persecuting other states for violating human rights= HUGE hypocrite.

[Mr Manifesto]

Not a Good Look (http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17216&c=206)

Another FBI agent’s account of interrogations at Guantánamo in which detainees were shackled hand and foot in a fetal position on the floor. The agent states that the detainees were kept in that position for 18 to 24 hours at a time and most had "urinated or defacated [sic]" on themselves. On one occasion, the agent reports having seen a detainee left in an unventilated, non-air conditioned room at a temperature "probably well over a hundred degrees." The agent notes: "The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his own hair out throughout the night." (Aug. 2, 2004)
An e-mail stating that an Army lawyer "worked hard to cwrite [sic] a legal justification for the type of interrogations they (the Army) want to conduct" at Guantánamo Bay. (Dec. 9, 2002)
An FBI agent’s account of an interrogation at Guantánamo - an interrogation apparently conducted by Defense Department personnel - in which a detainee was wrapped in an Israeli flag and bombarded with loud music and strobe lights. (July 30, 2004)

“Of concern, DOD interrogators impersonating Supervisory Special Agents of the FBI told a detainee that REDACTED. These same interrogation teams then REDACTED. The detainee was also told by this interrogation team REDACTED. These tactics have produced no intelligence of a threat neutralization nature to date and CITF believes that techniques have destroyed any chance of prosecuting this detainee. If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done the “FBI� interrogators. The FBI will be left holding the bag before the public.�