PDA

View Full Version : Should anyone in the USA be prosecuted for torture?


Pages : [1] 2

Thunder
16th April 2009, 03:50 PM
So now we have great detail, the techniques used to question terror suspects with "physical pressure". Some of these really disturb me, especially forcing someone to stay awake for 11 days, and locking someone in a tiny bug with a stinging insect.

This to me, is torture.

Should we prosecute the CIA agents who engaged in these techniques? Leave them alone but prosecute the lawyers and administration officials who justified and authorized these techniques?

I don't know who we should prosecute, but we can't just prosecute NO ONE.

Who are we as a nation and as a people if we just let this slide???

Pardalis
16th April 2009, 03:52 PM
You mean besides Britney Spears and the producers of American Idol?

JoeTheJuggler
16th April 2009, 03:59 PM
I was going to start a thread on this topic. I take it you're responding to AG Holder's announcement that he won't prosecute those who committed torture during the Bush regime if they were just following orders.

From the CNN story (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/us.torture.documents/index.html):
Also on Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder said that CIA officials will not be prosecuted for waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics that had been sanctioned during the Bush administration.

<snip>

"It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," he said in a statement.

Apparently Holder rejects the Nuremburg Principles. Especially Principle IV:
Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

"Superior orders" can certainly be a mitigating factor, but it is not in itself a defense. The question remaining is whether laws banning torture were violated. From what I've read, it sounds very likely that they were.

Holder is wrong, and I think it's an important precedent to set (either by prosecuting these crimes or ignoring them).

ETA: Also. . there's the whole Catch-22 that you can't let the people who did the dirty work off based on "superior orders" if you also claim that those superiors are immune because no one can prove that they issued such orders.

I would have a lot less problem with Holder letting the ones who followed orders go if we prosecuted those who issued the orders. Logically, you can't excuse the one for following orders and the other because there's no evidence of orders.

Thunder
16th April 2009, 04:17 PM
I think this sends a bad message, and this is so far the worst decision Obama has made, in my view. I understand why he did it. He needs the country to move forward and not get bogged down in partisan bickering. The economy is the central front right now.

Perhaps they could say that "at this time, we will not be pursuing criminal charges in this matter". that would make me feel a little better.

but to outright say "never, no way'??


im dissapointed.

Lonewulf
16th April 2009, 04:22 PM
I was going to start a thread on this topic. I take it you're responding to AG Holder's announcement that he won't prosecute those who committed torture during the Bush regime if they were just following orders.

I really hate to Godwin this, but isn't the Nuremberg Trials a good precedent for this? I mean, didn't the men involved in that make the exact same defense; they were just "following orders"?

Don't get me wrong, the degrees are quite different between what the Nazis did and our treatment of detained prisoners; but I'm asking, wasn't "we were just following orders" not seen as a good defense?


EDIT; Though even then, I think command was targeted, and not the average soldier, so it probably still applies.

Praktik
16th April 2009, 04:24 PM
Ya I was surprised there wasn't a thread for the ICRC report (http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf)or Danner's article (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22530) in the New York Review of Books.

I like to watch a lot of conservative media even though I'm fairly leftish and I got a thick skin but O'Reilly's segments that touched on this last night were infuriating.

All the more frustrating because the person advocating release of the DOJ memos didn't say the obvious thing in response to O'Reilly's claim that "no crimes were comitted", that being the 136 documented deaths of prisoners in detention: (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/the-doctors-who-tortured.html)

Of the 136 documented deaths of prisoners in detention, Miles found, medical death certificates were often not issued until months or even years after the actual deaths. One prisoner's corpse at Camp Cropper was kept for two weeks before his family or criminal investigators were notified. The body was then left at a local hospital with a certificate attributing death to "sudden brainstem compression." The hospital's own autopsy found that the man had died of a massive blow to the head. Another certificate claimed a 63-year-old prisoner had died of "cardiovascular disease and a buildup of fluid around his heart." According to Miles, no mention was made that the old man had been stripped naked, doused in cold water and kept outside in 40 degrees cold for three days before cardiac arrest.In 2006, 43 of these were classified as homicides. (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2006/12/deaths_in_us_cu.html)

The question of who to prosecute is a thorny one. My ideal scenario would involve some kind of recognition of the responsibility of the individuals perpetrating the policy directly to refuse immoral/illegal orders but leave them without any jail time or serious penalty - a shaming would be good enough for me. Something however, should be done about the doctors who were used to ensure the most effective application of torture - perhaps through their professional organizations if not through the criminal process.

The primary responsibility is with those who designed, directed and implemented the policy. The precedent is there: lawyers were tried at Nuremberg and ultimately the greatest fault lies with them. For future generations, an example needs to be made.

INRM
16th April 2009, 05:19 PM
I personally believe that particularly those who authorized, and ordered the torture should be prosecuted.

Those who participated in it should be tried on an individual basis depending on their level of participation. I don't think "I was just following orders" should be an automatic defense. I think there are definitely some people who participated in this torture who should be prosecuted.


Let's hope I don't get a heart-attack, end up disappearing or ending up on a no-fly-list or something for saying what I just said (j/k)


INRM

leftysergeant
16th April 2009, 05:50 PM
Rummy, Gonzo and Yoo should never see the sun again.

Not prosecuting the agents if they roll over on the people who gave the orders could be a good way to get the evidence needed, and to demonstrate that torture is far from the most effective way to get intel or criminal evidence.

Thunder
16th April 2009, 05:57 PM
Let's hope I don't get a heart-attack, end up disappearing or ending up on a no-fly-list or something for saying what I just said (j/k)


Are you really kidding? Something tells me you are partially serious about such fears.

Its very sad.

I want to see someone, anyone, get prosecuted for this torture. Maybe the guy who wrote the rules. Maybe the lawyer who wrote the justifications.

Someone!!

Lonewulf
16th April 2009, 06:09 PM
and to demonstrate that torture is far from the most effective way to get intel or criminal evidence.

Er, I don't think it's a good idea to give an incentive or promise a punishment if one does or does not bring up statistics that happen to support your hypothesis...

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that torture is the most effective way to get intel or criminal evidence. But starting with a conclusion and forcing people to find evidence for it is the opposite of what I stand for, in principle and in thought.

WildCat
16th April 2009, 06:18 PM
Rummy, Gonzo and Yoo should never see the sun again.
So you want to prosecute a lawyer for giving legal advice you don't agree with?

Should we lock up lawyers who argue the losing side in SCOTUS cases also? How about justices who write dissenting opinions?

But thanks once again for illustrating how short of a step it is from Marxism to totalitarianism.

leftysergeant
16th April 2009, 06:23 PM
So you want to prosecute a lawyer for giving legal advice you don't agree with?

Should we lock up lawyers who argue the losing side in SCOTUS cases also? How about justices who write dissenting opinions?

No, just the ones who acquiesce to crap that anyone with an IQ greater than that of a bonobo knows is illegal. Yoo, Gonzo and that maggot Rummy knew damned well what they were authorizing was illegal. They just figured that the "Unitary Executive" BS gave them the right to call what they did legal as long as they drafted a memo to that effect first.

You ever hear of a document called the Magna Carta?

davefoc
16th April 2009, 06:26 PM
I didn't answer the poll.

I think they should be prosecuted but if I was a decision maker on this in the Obama administration, I probably wouldn't prosecute them.

The difficulty is that popular sentiment is strongly against these kind of trials. I wish it wasn't that way. I wish the country agreed with me that the treatment of these individuals was criminal and that as a humanitarian oriented democracy the US should rise above its self serving interests and take action against this kind of activity.

But at least a substantial, motivated minority and perhaps a majority of Americans would be opposed to the trials and right now the US just doesn't need the kind of divisiveness these trials would cause. So put me on the side of practicality over justice.

The people most responsible are probably Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales with my vote being that Cheney was the main perpetrator. Bush went along, so I guess that makes him culpable also, but Bush seems to have essentially turned over these kind of issues to Cheney. Low level prosectuions presumably would lead to these fellows and the internal conflict over these kind of prosecutions would be very significant.

A good part of the country thinks that a guy who repeatedly lied to federal investigators and a grand jury and who almost certainly cooperated in a conspiracy to release the name of a covert agent got screwed when he was found guilty. Those kind of sentiments aren't going to go away no matter what the evidence reveals.

Thunder
16th April 2009, 06:29 PM
So you want to prosecute a lawyer for giving legal advice you don't agree with?

Didn't we prosecute German judges who found murder to be legal?

Didn't we prosecute German judges who allowed the Nuremberg laws?

JoeTheJuggler
16th April 2009, 06:31 PM
I really hate to Godwin this, but isn't the Nuremberg Trials a good precedent for this? I mean, didn't the men involved in that make the exact same defense; they were just "following orders"?
Yes. In fact "just following orders" or "superior orders" is sometimes called the "Nuremburg defense". However, the decision at Nuremburg is that does not constitute a defense. At most it can be considered a mitigating factor.


Don't get me wrong, the degrees are quite different between what the Nazis did and our treatment of detained prisoners; but I'm asking, wasn't "we were just following orders" not seen as a good defense?
No, it was not seen as a valid defense. I cited Principle IV of the Nuremburg Principle above.

Lonewulf
16th April 2009, 06:32 PM
No, it was not seen as a valid defense. I cited Principle IV of the Nuremburg Principle above.

Can't believe I missed that.:boggled:

Thunder
16th April 2009, 06:34 PM
Now, if you were ordered to torture, and faced imprisonment or death if you refused to follow orders, that is a different story.

But we all know that is not the situation in this case. If some guy in the CIA didn't want to participate, the most he would get is a reprimand.

JoeTheJuggler
16th April 2009, 06:37 PM
I didn't answer the poll.

I think they should be prosecuted but if I was a decision maker on this in the Obama administration, I probably wouldn't prosecute them.

I think your analysis is spot on, but I think it's a darned shame that justice isn't blind, and that it sometimes seems to be wholly subservient to politics.

What about some sort of Truth and Reconciliation hearing? That is, a process to shine some light on just what happened (who did what) even if no criminal charges are ever filed?

WildCat
16th April 2009, 06:46 PM
Didn't we prosecute German judges who found murder to be legal?

Didn't we prosecute German judges who allowed the Nuremberg laws?
Examples?

Lonewulf
16th April 2009, 06:50 PM
Examples?

:eye-poppi

So, uhm... The Nuremberg Trials means absolutely nothing to you?

You've reached a new low for ignorance. I'm not sure how to talk to you after this.

WildCat
16th April 2009, 06:52 PM
:eye-poppi

So, uhm... The Nuremberg Trials means absolutely nothing to you?

You've reached a new low for ignorance. I'm not sure how to talk to you after this.
So which Germans were prosecuted for giving legal advice again?

Lonewulf
16th April 2009, 06:52 PM
So you want to prosecute a lawyer for giving legal advice you don't agree with?When that legal advice is illegal, immoral, and unethical? Yes.

If a lawyer told me that I could kill someone and get away with it, would you think he should be acted against?

But thanks once again for illustrating how short of a step it is from Marxism to totalitarianism.

Thanks again for illustrating your immense capability in mindless hyperbole.

WildCat
16th April 2009, 06:54 PM
When that legal advice is illegal, immoral, and unethical? Yes.

If a lawyer told me that I could kill someone and get away with it, would you think he should be acted against?
So who did Yoo and Gonzales say could be killed again?

Thanks again for illustrating your immense capability in mindless hyperbole.
Oh please. You're the one making the claim, support it.

What, exactly, would you charge Yoo and Gonzalez with? Please be specific.

WildCat
16th April 2009, 06:57 PM
And it's good to see the comparisons of bush to Nazis are alive and well. It's nice to see some balance with those claiming Obama is a Communist.

Lonewulf
16th April 2009, 07:00 PM
And it's good to see the comparisons of bush to Nazis are alive and well. It's nice to see some balance with those claiming Obama is a Communist.

Yes, because the Nuremberg Trials didn't lay down any principles whatsoever to "we were just following orders" defense. There's no reason to bring it up whatsoever. :rolleyes:

Nice to see you never change, Wildcat.

WildCat
16th April 2009, 07:01 PM
Yes, because the Nuremberg Trials didn't lay down any principles whatsoever to "we were just following orders" defense. There's no reason to bring it up whatsoever. :rolleyes:

Nice to see you never change, Wildcat.
When did I argue that point?

Lonewulf
16th April 2009, 07:03 PM
When did I argue that point?

Sorry, I don't see any reason to bring up your "comparison between Bush and the Nazis" line, otherwise.

WildCat
16th April 2009, 07:04 PM
Parky thinks Constitutional rights should be put to a popular vote as far as gays are concerned. Should he be prosecuted for his opinion?

WildCat
16th April 2009, 07:08 PM
Sorry, I don't see any reason to bring up your "comparison between Bush and the Nazis" line, otherwise.
Funny, I could swear there were references to Nazis in this thread...

Lonewulf
16th April 2009, 07:09 PM
Erm. His opinion? Legal advice is seen on the same realm as "opinion"? Malpractice is almost always based on not doing your job, when you are expected to know what you're doing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_malpractice

The same principles in Legal Malpractice exist within Medical Malpractice.

Simply put, lawyers and doctors are held to a higher position than the "average person".

However, for what it's worth, I apologize for calling you ignorant. I was ignorant as to the specifics of what was being argued (judges instead of military personnel). But in this case, it is demonstrable that lawyers are held up to a higher standard than "just my opinion, so I'm safe".

WildCat
16th April 2009, 07:10 PM
The Washington DC city council passed a handgun ban which was found to be unconstitutional. When can we start prosecuting everyone who voted for that law, as well as the lawyers who defended it?

Lonewulf
16th April 2009, 07:11 PM
Funny, I could swear there were references to Nazis in this thread...

The Nuremberg Trials involved Nazis. So legal precedent involving the Nuremberg Trials, and surrounding trials, where "we were just following orders" would bring up the subject of Nazis.

As far as I know, just mentioning Nazis and precedent involving Nazis is not the same as saying "Bush is Hitler".

But if you want to show evidence where someone has called Bush Hitler, or suggested that he led us into a Fourth Reich, or suggested that his policies are all Nazi-like, you're certainly free to.

As it is, there has been precedent lay down when it comes to war crimes and what defense is considered valid or not. If you think that's the same as comparing Bush to Nazis, well, you're free to believe whatever you want. I would have the same justification for believing that I'm an airplane, though.

WildCat
16th April 2009, 07:13 PM
The Nuremberg Trials involved Nazis. So legal precedent involving the Nuremberg Trials, and surrounding trials, where "we were just following orders" would bring up the subject of Nazis.

As far as I know, just mentioning Nazis and precedent involving Nazis is not the same as saying "Bush is Hitler".

But if you want to show evidence where someone has called Bush Hitler, or suggested that he led us into a Fourth Reich, you're certainly free to.
I really don't think an international military tribunal which took place over 60 years ago is a good legal precedent for civilian legal matters in 2009.

Lonewulf
16th April 2009, 07:13 PM
The Washington DC city council passed a handgun ban which was found to be unconstitutional. When can we start prosecuting everyone who voted for that law, as well as the lawyers who defended it?

I'm sorry, you're confusing me. Do you recognize any difference between arguing a change in law, and advising going against the law? Because I don't see how this is a case of "arguing a change in law" through legal channels.

Lonewulf
16th April 2009, 07:15 PM
I really don't think an international military tribunal which took place over 60 years ago is a good legal precedent for civilian legal matters in 2009.

Right, because what we do to terrorists should be different from every other kind of prisoner, and what's immoral for how we treat soldiers and our own citizens is perfectly moral for how we treat "non-uniformed combatants". I know, I've heard all of this before. I still find it just as convincing now as back then.

At least they were more moral 60 years ago than some appear to be today...

WildCat
16th April 2009, 07:16 PM
The Nuremberg Trials involved Nazis. So legal precedent involving the Nuremberg Trials, and surrounding trials, where "we were just following orders" would bring up the subject of Nazis.

As far as I know, just mentioning Nazis and precedent involving Nazis is not the same as saying "Bush is Hitler".

But if you want to show evidence where someone has called Bush Hitler, or suggested that he led us into a Fourth Reich, or suggested that his policies are all Nazi-like, you're certainly free to.

As it is, there has been precedent lay down when it comes to war crimes and what defense is considered valid or not. If you think that's the same as comparing Bush to Nazis, well, you're free to believe whatever you want. I would have the same justification for believing that I'm an airplane, though.
Calm down, mostly I'm just tweaking lefty here. He's quite fond of calling anyone to the right of Hillary Clinton a Nazi. Even claims his local radio host calls his Nazi minions to protest Dems.

Lonewulf
16th April 2009, 07:17 PM
Calm down, mostly I'm just tweaking lefty here. He's quite fond of calling anyone to the right of Hillary Clinton a Nazi. Even claims his local radio host calls his Nazi minions to protest Dems.

Right, like you tweak Oliver much of the time. I kinda got that. I'm just not sure how your tweaking really benefits the conversation.

WildCat
16th April 2009, 07:23 PM
I'm sorry, you're confusing me. Do you recognize any difference between arguing a change in law, and advising going against the law? Because I don't see how this is a case of "arguing a change in law" through legal channels.
Actually this is exactly what is happening here.

Several top Dems - including Nancy Pelosi - were aware that some detainees were being subjected to waterboarding. If the legal issue was so clear why didn't she speak out?

Thunder
16th April 2009, 07:23 PM
Parky thinks Constitutional rights should be put to a popular vote as far as gays are concerned. Should he be prosecuted for his opinion?

Wildcat think that it is anti-Semitic to accuse Jews of racism, and because they are God's Chosen people and Holocaust survivors, therefore they can't be racist.

Should he be prosecuted for his opinion?

WildCat
16th April 2009, 07:25 PM
Wildcat think that it is anti-Semitic to accuse Jews of racism, and because they are God's Chosen people and Holocaust survivors, therefore they can't be racist.

Should he be prosecuted for his opinion?
Now you want me to be prosecuted for an opinion I never had?

How's that search for Nuremberg prosecutions over legal opinions going parky?

Thunder
16th April 2009, 07:34 PM
Now you want me to be prosecuted for an opinion I never had?

How's that search for Nuremberg prosecutions over legal opinions going parky?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges%27_Trial

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/Alstoetter.htm

read.......for once.

and learn.

WildCat
16th April 2009, 07:42 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges%27_Trial

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/Alstoetter.htm

read.......for once.

and learn.
And what have you learned from that? Is it comparable to what Yoo and Gonzalez did?

WildCat
16th April 2009, 07:45 PM
And, of course, the legal issues involved in "enhanced interrogation" were so clear that Sen. Clinton punted when asked about it:
I want to shift to a couple of domestic issues. In light of some of Michael Mukasey's comments Thursday on torture and waterboarding, will you vote to confirm him?
Well, I'm gonna look at the entire record of the hearing. His questions in a number of areas raised issues for me, so I have to look closely and see what I should do in terms of voting, and I will be doing that.

What were you most concerned about?
Well there were a number of issues. Obviously, I do not believe in as expansive a definition of executive power, and some of the questions on the second day about presidential authority with respect to interrogation also concern me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/23/usa.hillaryclinton

Lonewulf
16th April 2009, 07:46 PM
Actually this is exactly what is happening here.

Several top Dems - including Nancy Pelosi - were aware that some detainees were being subjected to waterboarding. If the legal issue was so clear why didn't she speak out?

I don't know, nor do I care, what Nancy Pelosi thought or did, nor do I think that that makes much for an argument at all.

It was a clear issue when we complained about the Japanese using waterboarding techniques on our own detainees. We didn't say "It's not torture! Do it all you want!" then.

Lonewulf
16th April 2009, 07:50 PM
And, of course, the legal issues involved in "enhanced interrogation" were so clear that Sen. Clinton punted when asked about it:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/23/usa.hillaryclinton

"Clinton Supported it! Ergo, it must be perfectly legitimate!"

WildCat
16th April 2009, 07:53 PM
I don't know, nor do I care, what Nancy Pelosi thought or did, nor do I think that that makes much for an argument at all.

It was a clear issue when we complained about the Japanese using waterboarding techniques on our own detainees. We didn't say "It's not torture! Do it all you want!" then.
The Japanese did far worse. If waterboarding was as far as they went there likely would have been no trials. Waterboarding was an afterthought amidst all the Japanese atrocities.

But if Gonzalez and Yoo should be prosecuted for a legal opinion that waterboarding did not amount to torture, shouldn't Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Rockefeller also be prosecuted for their tacit approval of it (and other harsh interrogation techniques) when they learned about it in 2002?

Lonewulf
16th April 2009, 07:55 PM
The Japanese did far worse. If waterboarding was as far as they went there likely would have been no trials. Well, I'll take that as your opinion, then.

But if Gonzalez and Yoo should be prosecuted for a legal opinion that waterboarding did not amount to torture, shouldn't Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Rockefeller also be prosecuted for their tacit approval of it (and other harsh interrogation techniques) when they learned about it in 2002?

If they supported it fully, yeah, sure. Why not?

Or do you think that I'd want them to be treated differently because "all those dem libs think alike durrrr"?

The reality is that probably no one will be, or even should be tried. Not because what they did wasn't immoral or arguably illegal, but more of because, quite simply, it's highly unlikely to go anywhere, and would require a large amount of resources that we can't properly apply, and it would cause just too much division.

But that doesn't make what they did moral or justifiable.

WildCat
16th April 2009, 07:58 PM
"Clinton Supported it! Ergo, it must be perfectly legitimate!"
When did I say that?

The point is it is hardly the clear-cut legal issue as is being claimed here, such as lefty's claim that "anyone with an IQ greater than that of a bonobo knows is illegal".

So clear legally it's even being compared to the "legality" of the Holocaust in parky's case!

Lonewulf
16th April 2009, 07:59 PM
So clear legally it's even being compared to the "legality" of the Holocaust in parky's case!

Where did he say that? That waterboarding and the actions of the Nazis were equivalent?

WildCat
16th April 2009, 08:04 PM
Where did he say that? That waterboarding and the actions of the Nazis were equivalent?
Right here he makes the comparison, as a justification for charging Yoo and Gonzalez:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges%27_Trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges%27_Trial)

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/Alstoetter.htm (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/Alstoetter.htm)

read.......for once.

and learn.

Reasonable legal scholars can disagree over whether Yoo and Gonzalez's opinions were correct as far as the law at the time. To prosecute over such legal opinions is, IMHO, a dangerous precedent to set. I think Obama recognizes this, and is therefore changing the policy rather than prosecuting.

WildCat
16th April 2009, 08:10 PM
Oh, and it's been mentioned in this thread that people have died in custody and that many of these have been classified as homicides. Clearly, many (if not all) of these cases involved interrogators going above and beyond what was ever authorized. I have no problem with prosecutions in those cases, and in fact some prosecutions have already been done as we have seen in the Abu Ghraib photos and other incidents.

Lonewulf
16th April 2009, 08:11 PM
Right here he makes the comparison, as a justification for charging Yoo and Gonzalez:


Reasonable legal scholars can disagree over whether Yoo and Gonzalez's opinions were correct as far as the law at the time. To prosecute over such legal opinions is, IMHO, a dangerous precedent to set. I think Obama recognizes this, and is therefore changing the policy rather than prosecuting.

I may not always agree with Parky, but your tactics here are rather disgusting.

Parky asks if there's precedent. You demand that he provides evidence of this precedent.

He provides evidence of that precedent (or rather, what he claims is precedent; I haven't gone through it fully myself, but you asked for it, and you got it, whether you agree with it or not). You could disagree as to whether it was applicable or not, which you sort of do, but then you launch into a strawman as to him claiming that the actions of Bush and actions under the Nazis were equivalent, and use that as a platform to attack him. He did no such thing; he was citing precedent at a time period where similar questions came up quite often, and a wealth of different legal decisions over what underlings can or can not do to others when ordered to do so, and what decisions they can or can not make. In this particular case, it was what judges could or could not pass as judgment on people, and whether or not they could be prosecuted for, what you call, "their opinion".

So you ask for precedent, and when provided, use that as a platform for a character attack instead of actually dealing with the precedent in itself.

It's rather disgusting. But the JREF has not been very awe-inspiring when it comes to political discussions.

You asked him to provide something. He provided it. Then you claim that he's making a claim that he never made.

Same old same old.

WildCat
16th April 2009, 08:19 PM
I may not always agree with Parky, but your tactics here are rather disgusting.

Parky asks if there's precedent. You demand that he provides evidence of this precedent.

He provides evidence of that precedent (or rather, what he claims is precedent; I haven't gone through it fully myself, but you asked for it, and you got it, whether you agree with it or not). You could disagree as to whether it was applicable or not, which you sort of do, but then you launch into a strawman as to him claiming that the actions of Bush and actions under the Nazis were equivalent, and use that as a platform to attack him. He did no such thing; he was citing precedent at a time period where similar questions came up quite often, and a wealth of different legal decisions over what underlings can or can not do to others when ordered to do so, and what decisions they can or can not make. In this particular case, it was what judges could or could not pass as judgment on people, and whether or not they could be prosecuted for, what you call, "their opinion".

So you ask for precedent, and when provided, use that as a platform for a character attack instead of actually dealing with the precedent in itself.

It's rather disgusting. But the JREF has not been very awe-inspiring when it comes to political discussions.

You asked him to provide something. He provided it. Then you claim that he's making a claim that he never made.

Same old same old.
I'm sorry, I don't see how a judge enforcing laws of genocide is any sort of precedent for prosecuting an attorney giving legal advice that some (certainly not all, maybe not even most) legal scholars disagree with.

eta: there's a world of difference between enforcing laws and offering an opinion on them, and the laws and legal issues themselves are worlds apart.

Praktik
16th April 2009, 08:33 PM
This is one of the more important sections of the memos released today with regards to whether the techniques employed actually amounted to torture:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SeeXtKpDOYI/AAAAAAAABx4/_akx896tKBI/s400/bradbury2.png

It's clear by this section that the directors of this policy were fully cognizant that the techniques employed were considered "torture" when applied by foreign countries. The example of Japan was mentioned in this thread, but the Khmer Rouge were also condemned for waterboarding. There's an artist's depiction of the practise in a museum they have dedicated to the use of torture in their past.

The rationale on which they carved out an American exception to this consensus is based on nothing more than traditional American exceptionalism.

Praktik
16th April 2009, 08:45 PM
Philippe Sands details the case (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/guantanamo200805?printable=true&currentPage=all)of a Nazi lawyer on trial at Nuremberg:

The table in the conference room held five stacks of files and papers, neatly arranged and yellow and crisp with age. Behind them sat an elderly gentleman named Ludwig Altstötter, rosy-cheeked and cherubic. Ludwig is the son of Josef Altstötter, the lead defendant in the 1947 case United States of America v. Josef Altstoetter et al., which was tried in Germany before a U.S. military tribunal. The case is famous because it appears to be the only one in which lawyers have ever been charged and convicted for committing international crimes through the performance of their legal functions. It served as the inspiration for the Oscar-winning 1961 movie Judgment at Nuremberg, whose themes are alluded to in Marcel Ophuls’s classic 1976 film on wartime atrocities, The Memory of Justice, which should be required viewing but has been lost to a broader audience. Nuremberg was, in fact, where Ludwig and I were meeting.

The Altstötter case had been prosecuted by the Allies to establish the principle that lawyers and judges in the Nazi regime bore a particular responsibility for the regime’s crimes. Sixteen lawyers appeared as defendants. The scale of the Nazi atrocities makes any factual comparison with Guantánamo absurd, a point made to me by Douglas Feith, and with which I agree. But I wasn’t interested in drawing a facile comparison between historical episodes. I wanted to know more about the underlying principle.

Josef Altstötter had the misfortune, because of his name, to be the first defendant listed among the 16. He was not the most important or the worst, although he was one of the 10 who were in fact convicted (4 were acquitted, one committed suicide, and there was one mistrial). He was a well-regarded member of society and a high-ranking lawyer. In 1943 he joined the Reich Ministry of Justice in Berlin, where he served as a Ministerialdirektor, the chief of the civil-law-and-procedure division. He became a member of the SS in 1937. The U.S. Military Tribunal found him guilty of membership in that criminal organization—with knowledge of its criminal acts—and sentenced him to five years in prison, which he served in full. He returned to legal practice in Nuremberg and died in 1979. Ludwig Altstötter had all the relevant documents, and he generously invited me to go over them with him in Nuremberg.

I took Ludwig to the most striking passage in the tribunal’s judgment. “He gave his name as a soldier and a jurist of note and so helped to cloak the shameful deeds of that organisation from the eyes of the German people.” The tribunal convicted Altstötter largely on the basis of two letters. Ludwig went to the piles on the table and pulled out fading copies of the originals. The first, dated May 3, 1944, was from the chief of the SS intelligence service to Ludwig’s father, asking him to intervene with the regional court of Vienna and stop it from ordering the transfer of Jews from the concentration camp at Theresienstadt back to Vienna to appear as witnesses in court hearings. The second letter was Altstötter’s response, a month later, to the president of the court in Vienna. “For security reasons,” he wrote, “these requests cannot be granted.” The U.S. Military Tribunal proceeded on the basis that Altstötter would have known what the concentration camps were for.

The words “security reasons” reminded me of remarks by Jim Haynes at the press conference with Gonzales: “Military necessity can sometimes allow … warfare to be conducted in ways that might infringe on the otherwise applicable articles of the Convention.” Haynes provided no legal authority for that proposition, and none exists. The minimum rights of detainees guaranteed by Geneva and the torture convention can never be overridden by claims of security or other military necessity. That is their whole purpose. And before anyone jumps the gun on a charge that this line of thinking constitutes an equivalency between the Nazis and America should hold back a moment: none but the most deluded would ever see the regimes as "equal in evil". But when it comes to the legal precedent of prosecuting a lawyer for the opinions they render and the consequences thereof - it is an instructive and useful precedent to consider.

Thunder
16th April 2009, 08:52 PM
And what have you learned from that? Is it comparable to what Yoo and Gonzalez did?

u asked for prosecutions based on legal opinions..and i provided it.

Texas
16th April 2009, 09:07 PM
Has anyone asked why Obama has said he will NOT prosecute anyone? Why didn't Holder publish the memos that detailed the results of those interrogations? You know damn well that there are documents relating to what if any information was gained and the reliability. It can't be that they are "top secret" since these memos present today were also classified top secret so let's demand the results along with the methods.

leftysergeant
17th April 2009, 02:17 AM
The Washington DC city council passed a handgun ban which was found to be unconstitutional. When can we start prosecuting everyone who voted for that law, as well as the lawyers who defended it?

Nobody got their junk slashed with a razor because of the handgun ban. Nobody got water boarded because Parky wants gay rights on the nballot.

People got their junk slashed, people got water boarded, and people got beaten to death because of what the three little piggies I named tried to sell to their idiot POTUS as valid detainee interogation methods. Clap them in irons and send them to The Hague.

WildCat
17th April 2009, 07:18 AM
Philippe Sands details the case (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/guantanamo200805?printable=true&currentPage=all)of a Nazi lawyer on trial at Nuremberg.

u asked for prosecutions based on legal opinions..and i provided it.
He was a judge, not merely a lawyer giving legal advice. Gonzalez and Yoo didn't, and couldn't, order anyone to do anything. They sentenced no one, the detained no one.

Even those goofs in Spain recognize the difference:


While their ruling is not binding, the announcement all but dooms prospects for the case against the men going forward. On Thursday, Spain's top law-enforcement official Candido Conde-Pumpido said he would not support an investigation against the officials - including former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Prosecutors said any such investigation ought to be conducted in the United States, not Spain. They also questioned the idea of bringing charges against lawyers and presidential advisers who neither carried out the alleged torture themselves, nor were ultimately responsible for ordering it.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090417/D97K5VE80.html

You guys are grasping at straws, and being not just a little dishonest in doing so.

WildCat
17th April 2009, 07:23 AM
Nobody got their junk slashed with a razor because of the handgun ban.
Nobody got their penis sliced by the CIA or other US agents either. So why do you bring it up? People were imprisoned over the unconstitutional law in DC though, weren't they? An likely subjected to prison rapes, beatings, etc.

People got their junk slashed, people got water boarded, and people got beaten to death because of what the three little piggies I named tried to sell to their idiot POTUS as valid detainee interogation methods. Clap them in irons and send them to The Hague.
I see you repeat the lie about penis slicing (hint: Morocco isn't part of the US nor under US control), a grand total of 3 people were waterboarded and that was in 2002, and beating was never an approved interrogation technique.

Are there any more outright lies you'd like to bring to this discussion?

Praktik
17th April 2009, 07:25 AM
I see you repeat the lie about penis slicing (hint: Morocco isn't part of the US nor under US control), a grand total of 3 people were waterboarded and that was in 2002, and beating was never an approved interrogation technique.

Beating detainee's heads against walls WAS an approved technique - and is it any wonder that once this door was opened that we'd have cases of agents/military personnel going too far?

Keep the accusations of dishonesty to yourself - that implies a conscious desire on our part to tell a falsehood the burden of proof for which is quite high even if it were true - which it isn't.

DC
17th April 2009, 07:27 AM
for Wildcat torture is ok aslong it is against those people he belives will do him harm.

WildCat
17th April 2009, 07:29 AM
Beating detainee's heads against walls WAS an approved technique - and is it any wonder that once this door was opened that we'd have cases of agents/military personnel going too far?
I don't suppose you'll be offering any evidence for that? :rolleyes:

Keep the accusations of dishonesty to yourself - that implies a conscious desire on our part to tell a falsehood the burden of proof for which is quite high even if it were true - which it isn't.
When you simply make stuff up (slamming heads against walls is an approved technique) and deliberately misrepresent what happened (like lefty's claim that what happened in Morocco was on orders from Bush officials) yes, you are being dishonest

WildCat
17th April 2009, 07:30 AM
for Wildcat torture is ok aslong it is against those people he belives will do him harm.
Oh look, another lie!

I guess when facts aren't available lies become an attractive option.

Praktik
17th April 2009, 07:31 AM
Oh - I thought you had read the memos released yesterday.

And you still persist with the dishonesty accusations?

Praktik
17th April 2009, 07:32 AM
He was a judge, not merely a lawyer giving legal advice. Gonzalez and Yoo didn't, and couldn't, order anyone to do anything. They sentenced no one, the detained no one.

That one gentleman I highlighted in the Sands article was a judge - but one of 16 lawyers that were tried at Nuremberg.

Praktik
17th April 2009, 07:33 AM
"Walling": http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/pdf/OfficeofLegalCounsel_Aug2Memo_041609.pdf?sid=ST200 9041602877

Care to retract your accusation of dishonesty?

WildCat
17th April 2009, 07:38 AM
"Walling": http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/pdf/OfficeofLegalCounsel_Aug2Memo_041609.pdf?sid=ST200 9041602877

Care to retract your accusation of dishonesty?
And what part of walling consists of the head being slammed against the wall? (hint: shoulders are not part of the "head")

I also note that the wall is flexible, and designed to make a loud noise, not to actually injure anyone.

And thank you for exposing your lie all by yourself!

WildCat
17th April 2009, 07:39 AM
That one gentleman I highlighted in the Sands article was a judge - but one of 16 lawyers that were tried at Nuremberg.
Maybe you'd like to highlight which ones were charged merely for providing a legal opinion?

DC
17th April 2009, 07:56 AM
Oh look, another lie!

I guess when facts aren't available lies become an attractive option.

yeah true sorry, i forgot you dont call it torture......

JoeTheJuggler
17th April 2009, 07:58 AM
I really don't think an international military tribunal which took place over 60 years ago is a good legal precedent for civilian legal matters in 2009.

You think a different standard should apply? Why? Do you think Nuremberg has been overturned as precedent? If so, what cases or treaties do you base this on?

I think you're simply wrong.

The Nuremberg Trials had a lot to do with the development of modern international law.

To the case in point, Nuremberg was where the "superior orders" defense was rejected.

The Adolf Eichmann trial in 1961 underscored the point by concluding that a "subordinate should disobey all orders that are clearly illegal." [Source (http://www.unt.edu/honors/eaglefeather/2004_Issue/HensonC4.shtml)]

As far as I know, these findings are still part of international law, and proponents of these principles historically were primarily people from the U.S. and the U.K.

If you want to go to a more contemporary setting, the same principle was encoded in Article 33 of the Rome Statute (http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/icc/statute/part-a.htm) of the International Criminal Court:

Article 33: Superior orders and prescription of law

1. The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a person pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless:

(a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government or the superior in question;

(b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and

(c) The order was not manifestly unlawful.

2. For the purposes of this article, orders to commit genocide or crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful.


Note the language, all three a, b and c must be true for the person to use "following orders" as a defense. Otherwise, it is no defense.

If you reject the ICC (because the U.S. has refused to sign), then you've got to go back to Nuremberg.

Praktik
17th April 2009, 08:08 AM
And thank you for exposing your lie all by yourself!

lol @ continued use of "lie".

I guess its bandied about often around here bit I find it makes for a distasteful "conversation".

JoeTheJuggler
17th April 2009, 09:40 AM
When did I say that?

The point is it is hardly the clear-cut legal issue as is being claimed here, such as lefty's claim that "anyone with an IQ greater than that of a bonobo knows is illegal".

So clear legally it's even being compared to the "legality" of the Holocaust in parky's case!

It would've been helpful if you'd made this point when you brought up the opinions of Pelosi and Clinton. (I didn't see what you were getting at either until this post.)

So your position is that reasonable minds could disagree with whether the orders being followed were clearly illegal?

That's fine, but it still doesn't mean there shouldn't be prosecutions. That's up to the fact-finder in the case to determine, I think--whether or not the orders were clearly illegal. At any rate, there is a prima facie case to be made that the people who followed these orders committed a crime. If they attempt to use "superior orders" as a defense, the law is pretty exacting of what they've got to show to invoke that. (Not the same as the defense of "I didn't do it" which puts the burden back on the prosecution to make the case that the accused did do it.)

Also, there's the issue I raised earlier: if "superior orders" ends up being a defense, then we must have proof of who issued those orders and at least prosecute those people. It's logically inconsistent to say that no one in a superior position issued any such orders AND the people who did the dirty work were only following orders.

I'm with Parky on this: someone should go to jail for these crimes.

JoeTheJuggler
17th April 2009, 09:53 AM
As for the issue of prosecuting someone for just giving legal advice, I think there's a similar problem. If Dubya's excuse is that he thought the orders he was issuing were legal because of the opinions, and Yoo's and Gonzales's excuse is that they were just giving legal opinions and not setting policy or issuing orders, then who is responsible? Surely it can't be that such a thing happened and NO ONE is culpable?

It didn't just happen by itself.

This is the sort of silliness that was put into the wiretapping law that gave retroactive immunity to companies that violated the law --turned over private info to government agencies without a warrant, even from the secret FISA courts, even though the previous law made a "bright line" so there would be no doubt. Basically, any company that shows that the government told them it was OK was absolved of breaking the law. What a horrible precedent!

Upchurch
17th April 2009, 10:01 AM
As for the issue of prosecuting someone for just giving legal advice, I think there's a similar problem. If Dubya's excuse is that he thought the orders he was issuing were legal because of the opinions, and Yoo's and Gonzales's excuse is that they were just giving legal opinions and not setting policy or issuing orders, then who is responsible? Surely it can't be that such a thing happened and NO ONE is culpable?
In that case, I would say responsibility always lies with the decision maker (i.e. the President). The lawyers should probably be brought before the Bar Association for the monumentally bad advice they gave their client and disbarred so hard their grandchildren couldn't practice law.

WildCat
17th April 2009, 10:33 AM
It would've been helpful if you'd made this point when you brought up the opinions of Pelosi and Clinton. (I didn't see what you were getting at either until this post.)

So your position is that reasonable minds could disagree with whether the orders being followed were clearly illegal?

That's fine, but it still doesn't mean there shouldn't be prosecutions. That's up to the fact-finder in the case to determine, I think--whether or not the orders were clearly illegal. At any rate, there is a prima facie case to be made that the people who followed these orders committed a crime. If they attempt to use "superior orders" as a defense, the law is pretty exacting of what they've got to show to invoke that. (Not the same as the defense of "I didn't do it" which puts the burden back on the prosecution to make the case that the accused did do it.)

Also, there's the issue I raised earlier: if "superior orders" ends up being a defense, then we must have proof of who issued those orders and at least prosecute those people. It's logically inconsistent to say that no one in a superior position issued any such orders AND the people who did the dirty work were only following orders.

I'm with Parky on this: someone should go to jail for these crimes.
When have I ever claimed that "superior orders" was a defense?

WildCat
17th April 2009, 10:36 AM
lol @ continued use of "lie".

I guess its bandied about often around here bit I find it makes for a distasteful "conversation".
And what does it do for the conversation when you lie about misstate what the memo actually said?

Praktik
17th April 2009, 10:48 AM
See?

Was that so hard?

WildCat
17th April 2009, 11:01 AM
See?

Was that so hard?
So why did you "misstate" it Praktik? Do you think you were engaging in an honest discussion?

A casual reader might think the memo authorized beating a detainees head against a concrete wall the way you wrote it.

The memo made clear that injury was to be avoided, and how to ensure that (flexible wall, only the shoulders hit the wall, etc).

If that constitutes torture then the word is meaningless any more. A parent slapping their child is torturing him.

Now hanging a child over a burning pile of wood until their flesh burns off while a hook is inserted into the groin to keep them from struggling (an actual torture method employed by N. Korea) is [i]the exact same thing[i] as a back-handed slap to the abdomen or pushing someone's shoulders into a wall designed to make a loud bang but not to actually injure or even cause any real pain.

Because now, it's all "torture"! Never mind the details.

None of this was done in secret, there is documented Congressional oversight. Only when it became a political issue did it suddenly become torture and Congress developed a case of amnesia.

Brainster
17th April 2009, 11:03 AM
There is no option that I would pick:

Prosecute no one and do it again only if Jack Bauer thinks it's necessary.

JoeTheJuggler
17th April 2009, 11:08 AM
When have I ever claimed that "superior orders" was a defense?

I was responding to your post (which I quoted) where you rejected the legal principles laid out by Nuremburg:
I really don't think an international military tribunal which took place over 60 years ago is a good legal precedent for civilian legal matters in 2009.

I responded by showing that that legal principle is indeed still good legal precedent. (Who said anything about civilians? I think the question is strictly about CIA agents, military personnel and government officials of one type or another.)

ZirconBlue
17th April 2009, 11:12 AM
I think this whole "superior orders" discussion is a red herring. My understanding of Holder's decision not to prosecute was not based on them "just following orders". Rather, the logic is something this: the CIA got legal advice (in advance) from the Justice Department as to what techniques were allowed. They proceeded to follow the Justice Department's directives. For the Justice Department to then prosecute them for following the Justice Department's own directives isn't. . . just.

Praktik
17th April 2009, 11:14 AM
So why did you "misstate" it Praktik? Do you think you were engaging in an honest discussion?

Well I'm not just talking about the memo, but the ICRC report: (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22530)

Also on a daily basis during the first two weeks a collar was looped around my neck and then used to slam me against the walls of the interrogation room. It was also placed around my neck when being taken out of my cell for interrogation and was used to lead me along the corridor. It was also used to slam me against the walls of the corridor during such movements.
...
Two black wooden boxes were brought into the room outside my cell. One was tall, slightly higher than me and narrow. Measuring perhaps in area [3 1/2 by 2 1/2 feet by 6 1/2 feet high]. The other was shorter, perhaps only [3 1/2 feet] in height. I was taken out of my cell and one of the interrogators wrapped a towel around my neck, they then used it to swing me around and smash me repeatedly against the hard walls of the room.
...
The number of people present varied greatly from one day to another. Other interrogators, including women, were also sometimes present.... A doctor was usually also present. If I was perceived not to be cooperating I would be put against a wall and punched and slapped in the body, head and face. A thick flexible plastic collar would also be placed around my neck so that it could then be held at the two ends by a guard who would use it to slam me repeatedly against the wall. The beatings were combined with the use of cold water, which was poured over me using a hose-pipe. The beatings and use of cold water occurred on a daily basis during the first month.
...
The beatings became worse and I had cold water directed at me from a hose-pipe by guards while I was still in my cell. The worst day was when I was beaten for about half an hour by one of the interrogators. My head was banged against the wall so hard that it started to bleed. Cold water was poured over my head. This was then repeated with other interrogators. Finally I was taken for a session of water boarding. The torture on that day was finally stopped by the intervention of the doctor. I was allowed to sleep for about one hour and then put back in my cell standing with my hands shackled above my head.Is it really that much of a mis-statement to suggest that beatings (or "wallings") were policy? Is it any surprise that the directions in the memo would result not only in cases where detainees were "walled" in ways that surpass the memo in some cases?

May I refer you as well to the beatings (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1012415.ece) that (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38775.html) resulted (http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4824900/) in the death (http://buckdogpolitics.blogspot.com/2009/02/details-emerging-on-deaths-of-detainees.html) of many detainess. (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/18/ex-state-dept-official-hundreds-of-detainees-died-in-us-custody-at-least-25-murdered/)

Now, you could argue that the Branbury memo did not call for the beating deaths of detainees, and prescribed a kind of beating that would not involve the head - but in my opinion it was obvious that in the field these would be consequences of a policy that prescribed beatings and the administration should have been smart enough to know that once this pandora's box was opened things would very quickly get out of control.

Now, did I think I was participating in an honest discussion? Yes.

At the very worst, you could say I'm "mistaken" - but obviously I don't think I am. Your continual urge to refer to your debate opponents as "liars" says way more about you than it could ever say about us - given that the amount of knowledge you would need to prove a lie from someone like me is nigh-unattainable.

Overall I think discussions are much more productive when we don't spend time pontificating on the inner minds of our opponents.

JoeTheJuggler
17th April 2009, 11:21 AM
I think this whole "superior orders" discussion is a red herring. My understanding of Holder's decision not to prosecute was not based on them "just following orders". Rather, the logic is something this: the CIA got legal advice (in advance) from the Justice Department as to what techniques were allowed. They proceeded to follow the Justice Department's directives. For the Justice Department to then prosecute them for following the Justice Department's own directives isn't. . . just.

I don't buy that "following directives" is somehow a defense different from "following orders" or "superior orders".

JoeTheJuggler
17th April 2009, 11:44 AM
The point is it is hardly the clear-cut legal issue as is being claimed here, such as lefty's claim that "anyone with an IQ greater than that of a bonobo knows is illegal".

I think Pelosi and Clinton are wrong on this point, and it is in fact a clear-cut legal issue.

The U.N. Convention Against Torture (signed and ratified by the U.S. and therefore part and parcel of U.S. law) defines torture as:
Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

I'll quote all of Article 2 since it is to the point (and reflects the legal precedent of Nuremburg):
Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

The U.S. complied with Article 2.1 by means of Title 18 of the U.S. Code (Part I, chapter 113C, section 2340):

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

Yes, stuff like waterboarding (the effectiveness of which depends almost entirely on "the threat of imminent death") is clearly torture to anyone with any sense or integrity whatsoever.

The famous Bush administration Torture Memo gave a definition of torture that contradicted clearly worded law. It defined torture as only that which causes pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

I agree with Upchurch--the people who wrote such a bit of legal opinion should be disbarred. People who acted on it should be prosecuted for their crimes and go to jail.

ZirconBlue
17th April 2009, 11:53 AM
I don't buy that "following directives" is somehow a defense different from "following orders" or "superior orders".

Well, if nothing else, in this case you would have the people being prosecuted by the very group* that gave them legal instruction on what they were allowed to do. This would be like asking the IRS about the tax laws, following their instructions, and then being prosecuted by the IRS for not following the tax laws.

JoeTheJuggler
17th April 2009, 12:07 PM
Well, if nothing else, in this case you would have the people being prosecuted by the very group* that gave them legal instruction on what they were allowed to do. This would be like asking the IRS about the tax laws, following their instructions, and then being prosecuted by the IRS for not following the tax laws.

It's not the very same people. Attorney General Holder is an Obama appointee.

Surely you're not saying that a branch of government is above the law and cannot be prosecuted for its crimes?

I agree that a better solution would be for the U.S. to sign and ratify the International Criminal Court and for these matters to be prosecuted by an international body, but as I've shown, there's no legal reason behind Holder's decision not to prosecute anyone.

ETA: To answer your IRS analogy, I think you're wrong. If, for example, the IRS sent you a million dollar refund check that you know you shouldn't have gotten it, I'm pretty sure you would be committing a crime if you took the money. The issue is that if you know something is illegal (especially really big things like torture, rape, and murder), the fact that you were following orders when you did it is not a defense.

ZirconBlue
17th April 2009, 12:34 PM
It's not the very same people. Attorney General Holder is an Obama appointee.

I know. (In fact, I had a couple of sentences addressing that, that I decided to omit.) But, while a new administration will sometimes make radical reversals in policy, I don't think that those should automatically be retroactive changes.

Surely you're not saying that a branch of government is above the law and cannot be prosecuted for its crimes?

No, but I think when you solicit advice from the Justice Department, barring extraordinary circumstances, you should generally not then be prosecuted for following that advice. I know that there are different people at Justice now than then, but if reversals in policy lead to prosecutions for people who followed the previous policy, then no one can ever trust any advice given by Justice. After all, in just a few short years that advice could be recinded and you could find yourself in court.

I agree that a better solution would be for the U.S. to sign and ratify the International Criminal Court and for these matters to be prosecuted by an international body

I have no opinion on that idea at this time.

but as I've shown, there's no legal reason behind Holder's decision not to prosecute anyone.

I don't think it's based on a "legal reason", but a pragmatic one.

To answer your IRS analogy, I think you're wrong. If, for example, the IRS sent you a million dollar refund check that you know you shouldn't have gotten it, I'm pretty sure you would be committing a crime if you took the money. The issue is that if you know something is illegal (especially really big things like torture, rape, and murder), the fact that you were following orders when you did it is not a defense.

But what if you don't know what is "legal"? You're preparing your tax return and aren't sure whether a certain deduction is allowed. You call the IRS and they tell you it is. A few years later, you're audited and the new head of the IRS decides to prosecute you for tax fraud.

If you go to the appropriate authority and they give you bad advice, how are you expected to know not to follow it?

Drysdale
17th April 2009, 01:41 PM
Releasing this has a whole lot more bearing on national security than 3 freaking pirates.

When the terrorists stop with the kill any and all infidels attacks, including women and children then we'll stop waterboarding and the other stuff. That seems pretty fair to me.

This is just stupid.

JoeTheJuggler
17th April 2009, 01:41 PM
No, but I think when you solicit advice from the Justice Department, barring extraordinary circumstances, you should generally not then be prosecuted for following that advice.
Your opinion is contrary to the law as I've shown in this thread. The "just following orders" defense cannot be used to justify torture.

At any rate, do you then hold the people who wrote those legal opinions accountable?

I don't think it's based on a "legal reason", but a pragmatic one.
I agree with you there--at least for a certain definition of "pragmatic". I think in the long run, it's more practical to make sure everyone must abide by the rule of law in these matters.

But what if you don't know what is "legal"? You're preparing your tax return and aren't sure whether a certain deduction is allowed. You call the IRS and they tell you it is. A few years later, you're audited and the new head of the IRS decides to prosecute you for tax fraud.

If you go to the appropriate authority and they give you bad advice, how are you expected to know not to follow it?
Going back to torture, that's why it's been clearly defined. In the IRS hypothetical, I'm not arguing about grey areas where you may or may not know whether or not you're entitled to some amount of money. If you know the $1 million isn't yours, and you keep the money, I'm nearly certain you have committed a prosecutable crime.

If the argument is simply that people didn't know that it's wrong to torture, then I'll point to the clearly spelled out legal definitions. Really--does anyone actually think that waterboarding is somehow not torture? The "threat of imminent death" language is in the U.S. Code. The whole point of waterboarding is to make the person think he might be about to be killed.

JoeTheJuggler
17th April 2009, 01:46 PM
When the terrorists stop with the kill any and all infidels attacks, including women and children then we'll stop waterboarding and the other stuff. That seems pretty fair to me.

First, legally you're flat out wrong. The U.N. Convention Against Torture specifically says that there's no emergency or crisis that can justify torture. Article 2.2 says:
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

Second, you aspire to be no better than a terrorist? If we suspend our basic principles as long as there is crime in the world, is it meaningful to say that we have those principles?

And third, we have stopped waterboarding and all the other stuff now. So you're wrong on that account too.

Drysdale
17th April 2009, 01:47 PM
What does the UN say about terrorist attacks?

Praktik
17th April 2009, 01:49 PM
Releasing this has a whole lot more bearing on national security than 3 freaking pirates.

When the terrorists stop with the kill any and all infidels attacks, including women and children then we'll stop waterboarding and the other stuff. That seems pretty fair to me.

This is just stupid.

Ya, this is an appropriate standard that I apply in my own life. As long as I see someone acting in a way worse than myself, I figure whatever it is I'm doing is cool.

JoeTheJuggler
17th April 2009, 01:54 PM
The Japanese did far worse. If waterboarding was as far as they went there likely would have been no trials. Waterboarding was an afterthought amidst all the Japanese atrocities.
I don't think that's factually accurate.

Here are a few examples (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834)where the U.S. prosecuted people for waterboarding type of torture:
In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

"All of these trials elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators," writes Evan Wallach in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law.

On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.

Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.

I also just caught the tail end of a report on post WWII prosecutions that mentioned one Japanese torturer who was given life in prison primarily for waterboarding Filipino prisoners. (Sorry--I didn't catch the name or any other details.)

This history hardly sounds like the U.S. treated it as an afterthought.

JoeTheJuggler
17th April 2009, 01:59 PM
What does the UN say about terrorist attacks?

In the 1980s, the U.N. tried to define terrorism, but the effort was quashed largely by the U.S. It's been a more effective political tool to define terrorism as "what the terrorists do" and to define a "terrorist" as "someone we don't like". Otherwise you run into embarrassing situations where something your friend and cronies does might be considered terrorism.

However, there are specific laws (domestic and international) that makes it illegal to do the acts that are generally considered "terrorist attacks" (bombing, killing, hijacking, kidnapping, etc.)

Are you suggesting any of these are condoned by international law?

ETA: You might care to browse this website (http://www.un.org/terrorism/)a bit too. From that page:
Sixteen universal instruments (thirteen instruments and three amendments) against international terrorism have been elaborated within the framework of the United Nations system relating to specific terrorist activities. Member States through the General Assembly have been increasingly coordinating their counter-terrorism efforts and continuing their legal norm-setting work. The Security Council has also been active in countering terrorism through resolutions and by establishing several subsidiary bodies. At the same time a number of programmes, offices and agencies of the United Nations system have been engaged in specific activities against terrorism, further assisting Member States in their counter-terrorism efforts.

Brainster
17th April 2009, 02:16 PM
The caterpillar guy (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1891812,00.html) should be prosecuted for torture:

"You [the CIA] would like to place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box with an insect. You have informed us [the Department of Justice] that he appears to have a fear of insects. In particular, you would like to tell Zubaydah that you intend to place a stinging insect into the box with him. You would, however, place a harmless insect in the box. You have orally informed us that you would in fact place a harmless insect such as a catapiller (sic) in the box with him."

The horror! The horror! Not in my name!

Drysdale
17th April 2009, 02:53 PM
In the 1980s, the U.N. tried to define terrorism, but the effort was quashed largely by the U.S. It's been a more effective political tool to define terrorism as "what the terrorists do" and to define a "terrorist" as "someone we don't like". Otherwise you run into embarrassing situations where something your friend and cronies does might be considered terrorism.

However, there are specific laws (domestic and international) that makes it illegal to do the acts that are generally considered "terrorist attacks" (bombing, killing, hijacking, kidnapping, etc.)

Are you suggesting any of these are condoned by international law?

ETA: You might care to browse this website (http://www.un.org/terrorism/)a bit too. From that page:

No, I'm suggesting when the terrorists follow the UN resolutions we can adopt this policy. In other words I dont believe in the utopian turn the other cheek. I believe in an eye for an eye.

Terrorists and their ilk dont care about compassion and understanding. They are what they are. Kinda like Polar Bears and Lions. You jump in the cage with one and try to be nice and they'll eat you anyway.

Thats just reality. Hopefully one day that changes but at this stage in the game it is what it is.

Thunder
17th April 2009, 03:03 PM
chaining someone to a bench, so they can't sleep for 11 days, is torture. someone needs to go to jail for this.

locking someone in a tiny box, with a stinging insect, knowing that the person has a phobia for insects, is torture. someone needs to go to jail for this.

If we do not hold anyone accountable for these crimes, then we are not the great country that always claim to be.

JoeTheJuggler
17th April 2009, 03:25 PM
No, I'm suggesting when the terrorists follow the UN resolutions we can adopt this policy. In other words I dont believe in the utopian turn the other cheek. I believe in an eye for an eye.
I believe that it's absurd to think that terrorism (or crime in general) will ever be eradicated. If you think we should abandon our principles until that time, then you are merely suggesting we should abandon our principles and become as bad as the worst in humanity.

In the real world, we can enforce standards of law on everyone.


Terrorists and their ilk dont care about compassion and understanding. They are what they are. Kinda like Polar Bears and Lions. You jump in the cage with one and try to be nice and they'll eat you anyway.

Thats just reality. Hopefully one day that changes but at this stage in the game it is what it is.
I think you're the one with his head in the clouds if you think there will be a day when terrorism (or crime in general) will cease to exist. That sounds like Bush's crackpot notions of eliminating evil.

In your approach, is there anyway to distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys, or is it simply might makes right?

Drysdale
17th April 2009, 03:51 PM
I doubt it will end,I never said it would. Dont insinuate something I never said.
I said hopefully it would. Hopefully I win the lottery too but I'm not banking on it.
My point is until it does we're gonna have to adopt unorthodox measures to combat it.

We're dealing with people that kill their own family for disgracing them. Beheading people is nothing to them. You dont bring a knife to a gunfight. Anyway we can gain intelligence to stop them within reason is justified in my view. If they are using hot irons and chopping off extremities that's one thing. This stuff is basically psychological in nature.

But to the OP, I think releasing this is just stupid. If you're gonna prosecute them fine, but to release it for supposed transparent reasons is a crock. If we're dealing with transparency how about releasing everything else too? Including the current administrations memos.

Praktik
17th April 2009, 04:02 PM
so following that logic, should McVeigh have been waterboarded and beaten? Deprived of sleep and forced to live in diapers?

He thought nothing of killing hundreds of innocents.

Thunder
17th April 2009, 04:15 PM
if we are attacked because of our values, and then we abandon our values in order to defend ourselves, then our attackers have won.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 04:34 PM
if we are attacked because of our values, and then we abandon our values in order to defend ourselves, then our attackers have won.

Well said, Parky.

Drysdale
17th April 2009, 04:56 PM
if we are attacked because of our values, and then we abandon our values in order to defend ourselves, then our attackers have won.

If we are attacked and they kill a lot of people and establish Sharia law then they've won too have'nt they?

I'd rather lose morally then literally.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 05:01 PM
If we are attacked and they kill a lot of people and establish Sharia law then they've won too have'nt they?

I'd rather lose morally then literally.

...Wow.

Just goes to prove how close to fantasyland some posters really are. The U.S. isn't even close to being invaded to the point of having Sharia law established. Europe has an even higher chance of that, given the majority muslim population in several countries. Not torturing people doesn't immediately lead to having your country taken over; WHO KNEW?

But ends before the means, even when the ends are the means. Become a state that tortures and tramples on human rights, to avoid some dark dystopian future that's extremely unlikely to ever see the light of day for centuries. In short, create a dystopia to avoid a different kind of dystopia not of your choosing. Sounds fair.

Also, a tip: Terrorist actions aren't even close to being an invasion. To put it another, which country exactly is looking into directly invading the USA? Terrorist cells are necessarily without a nationality, even if there are countries that are "friendly" to them, and even then only to a point.

Thunder
17th April 2009, 05:02 PM
If we are attacked and they kill a lot of people and establish Sharia law then they've won too have'nt they?


what exactly is the risk of that?

um...none.

nice strawman though. very impressive. you should have been a speech writer for Cheney.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 05:03 PM
what exactly is the risk of that?

um...none.

nice strawman though. very impressive. you should have been a speech writer for Cheney.

Not really a strawman. He's not claiming that you're claiming that we'll be invaded.

I'd call his "argument" hyperbole, not a strawman.

Thunder
17th April 2009, 05:06 PM
I'd call his "argument" hyperbole, not a strawman.

don't confuse me with...um..smart things.

:D

Cobalt
17th April 2009, 05:11 PM
This whole thread is like the angry mob you see in South Park, everyone just standing around yelling "Rabble rabble rabble rabble!" and nothing actually being accomplished.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 05:16 PM
No, I'm suggesting when the terrorists follow the UN resolutions we can adopt this policy. In other words I dont believe in the utopian turn the other cheek. I believe in an eye for an eye. Thankfully, some of us have moved beyond Bronze Age morality. We also don't do stoning, either.

Terrorists and their ilk dont care about compassion and understanding. They are what they are. Kinda like Polar Bears and Lions. You jump in the cage with one and try to be nice and they'll eat you anyway.

Thats just reality. Hopefully one day that changes but at this stage in the game it is what it is.

Even if "they are what they are", I know what I am not, and that is a torturer. You don't avoid being eaten by becoming a bear yourself.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 05:18 PM
This whole thread is like the angry mob you see in South Park, everyone just standing around yelling "Rabble rabble rabble rabble!" and nothing actually being accomplished.

So nice to see you "contributing" in your own special way, Cobalt.

Maybe you can enter and actually make this thread "accomplish" something. Because threads on the internet are famous for "accomplishing" lots of things. :rolleyes:

Drysdale
17th April 2009, 05:21 PM
...Wow.

Just goes to prove how close to fantasyland some posters really are. The U.S. isn't even close to being invaded to the point of having Sharia law established.

But ends before the means, even when the ends are the means. Become a state that tortures and tramples on human rights, to avoid some dark dystopian future that's extremely unlikely to ever see the light of day for centuries.

Also, a tip: Terrorist actions aren't even close to being an invasion.

Fantasyland is the idea that if we lay down our arms and play nice others will follow.

And no, it most likely wont be a typical invasion. I dont think I said it would did I?

Thunder
17th April 2009, 05:22 PM
Fantasyland is the idea that if we lay down our arms and play nice others will follow.

another strawman.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 05:23 PM
Fantasyland is the idea that if we lay down our arms and play nice others will follow.Because the choice is between "Torture!" and "Lay down our arms and play nice". Funny how we managed to avoid torture throughout major world wars, and somehow, LE GASP! we managed to actually FIGHT during those wars.

Seriously, crack open a history book sometime. You'll learn stuff!

And no, it most likely wont be a typical invasion. I dont think I said it would did I?

Please explain to the class how this invasion will work, please? It's not a "typical" invasion, but we're certainly on the brink of it to bolster your argument, are we not?

Lay it down, detail for detail. How exactly will this invasion take place, and how is torture the only way to avoid it? Show all your work, and cite your sources, please.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 05:25 PM
another strawman.

Yeah, you called it right this time. :D

Cobalt
17th April 2009, 05:26 PM
So nice to see you "contributing" in your own special way, Cobalt.

Maybe you can enter and actually make this thread "accomplish" something. Because threads on the internet are famous for "accomplishing" lots of things. :rolleyes:

Mmkay. Screw it, move on with our lives.

Seriously, what do you gain by putting someone in jail? This thread just looks mostly like another festival of just whining and moaning about something people don't like, even if there's no point in it.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 05:28 PM
Mmkay. Screw it, move on with our lives.Yeah. Forums aren't really important in general.

Seriously, what do you gain by putting someone in jail?What do you gain by bringing anyone to justice?

This thread just looks mostly like another festival of just whining and moaning about something people don't like, even if there's no point in it.

Yes, it's people "whining and moaning" about potential human rights violations that our own country has been partaking in against our wishes, while we simultaneously have pointed fingers at other countries for doing the exact same thing that we are partaking in (see the bringing Japanese internment officers to justice for enacting waterboarding procedures, above).

People do tend to "whine and moan" (which you seem to identify "Wanting to see justice brought to certain people") about injustices in general. If it was about, say, a person committing torture or an unpopular country doing the exact same procedures instead of, say, some members of the party you obviously seem to support, you'd probably be talking differently.

Thunder
17th April 2009, 05:29 PM
Because the choice is between "Torture!" and "Lay down our arms and play nice". .

Funny how conspiracy theorists, Communists, Fascists, all seem to live in an "all or nothing" and a "black or white" world huh??

For these folks, there is NO grey. There is NO in between.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 05:31 PM
Funny how conspiracy theorists, Communists, Fascists, all seem to live in an "all or nothing" and a "black or white" world huh??

For these folks, there is NO grey. There is NO in between.

It's a common tactic. Demonize the enemy, make it seem like you have no real choice and that "The End" or some terrible catastrophe is imminent, and that people have to enact draconian measures to defend against it. It's a basic Rise to Power policy in general, and it easily plays on the fears of the gullible and uneducated/brainwashed.

Cobalt
17th April 2009, 05:38 PM
Yeah. Forums aren't really important in general.
Referring to the topic at hand, but allright.


What do you gain by bringing anyone to justice?
Depends, are we talking a murderer? Cause then it's one less killer on the streets. A legal opinion that may have been mistaken? Waste of prison space.


Yes, it's people "whining and moaning" about potential human rights violations that our own country has been partaking in against our wishes, while we simultaneously have pointed fingers at other countries for doing the exact same thing that we are partaking in (see the bringing Japanese internment officers to justice for enacting waterboarding procedures, above).
Oh no, not a hypocritical government! Anything but that! Not exactly news.


People do tend to whine and moan about injustices in general. If it was about, say, a murderer instead of, say, some members of the party you obviously seem to support, you'd probably be talking differently.
You are incorrect about what party I support. I support no party in general. So far, I've seen nothing to actually charge anyone with. Bring up an actual crime, then maybe I'll give a ****.

Cobalt
17th April 2009, 05:41 PM
Funny how conspiracy theorists, Communists, Fascists, all seem to live in an "all or nothing" and a "black or white" world huh??

For these folks, there is NO grey. There is NO in between.

You're saying the exact same thing. "Someone needs to go to jail." No other choices, no other investigation into what's going on, just prison.

Drysdale
17th April 2009, 05:54 PM
Because the choice is between "Torture!" and "Lay down our arms and play nice". Funny how we managed to avoid torture throughout major world wars, and somehow, LE GASP! we managed to actually FIGHT during those wars.

Seriously, crack open a history book sometime. You'll learn stuff!



Please explain to the class how this invasion will work, please? It's not a "typical" invasion, but we're certainly on the brink of it to bolster your argument, are we not?

Lay it down, detail for detail. How exactly will this invasion take place, and how is torture the only way to avoid it? Show all your work, and cite your sources, please.


Actually I'm referencing Obama's policies in general on the laying down the arms comment. If we become too passive it most assuredly will occur,maybe you should check out some history too. And maybe from a completely seperate source. That's a thread derail though so forget that here.

I also never said we're on the brink of it. We may be though,who knows.
If I knew though do you honestly think I'd be wasting time on a msg board
with it?

I'd like to know what gives you such confidence there was'nt torture in other wars? Are you really that naive?

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 05:56 PM
Actually I'm referencing Obama's policies in general on the laying down the arms comment. If we become too passive it most assuredly will occur,maybe you should check out some history too. And maybe from a completely seperate source. That's a thread derail though so forget that here.

I also never said we're on the brink of it. We may be though,who knows.
If I knew though do you honestly think I'd be wasting time on a msg board
with it?

I'd like to know what gives you such confidence there was'nt torture in other wars? Are you really that naive?
So we tortured enemy POWs in WWII and WWI. Evidence, please? Whether or not I'm "naive" doesn't cut it.

So we have to torture for this vague invasion that could or could not be happening, who knows, because some internet poster says so. Also, WWI and WWII could not have possibly been won without torturing enemy POWs, as there certainly aren't any other methods of interrogation with any kind of a success rate.

Okay. :rolleyes:

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 05:57 PM
You're saying the exact same thing. "Someone needs to go to jail." No other choices, no other investigation into what's going on, just prison.

In the United States, a prison sentence is generally the way to bring those deemed as criminals to justice.

If you have an alternative, please bring it up. However, can you please explain how wanting to see someone serve a jail sentence is in any way comparable to claiming that Muslims are close to invading the United States without evidence, please?

DC
17th April 2009, 06:05 PM
Obama wants to lay down arms?

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 06:13 PM
Obama wants to lay down arms?

Apparently. News to me, but I'll trust Drysdale's sooper sekret sourcez. About as much as I trust any claim that he's made throughout this thread, actually.

Drysdale
17th April 2009, 06:15 PM
I can no more prove there was than you can prove there was'nt.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 06:19 PM
I can no more prove there was than you can prove there was'nt.

1) Burden of Proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_Proof).

2) Negative Proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof).

You just lost on two counts. Actually, several more, but I don't see why I should spend any more time on you.

Drysdale
17th April 2009, 06:22 PM
Obama wants to lay down arms?

So those talks of arms reduction with Russia and cutting defense spending was just a dream?

Whew,thank goodness.

DC
17th April 2009, 06:22 PM
Drysdale? what people can be tortured a bit? how do we know one is a terrorist?

Drysdale
17th April 2009, 06:24 PM
1) Burden of Proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_Proof).

2) Negative Proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof).

You just lost on two counts. Actually, several more, but I don't see why I should spend any more time on you.

Fair enough, I grow weary of your utopia talk as well.

DC
17th April 2009, 06:24 PM
So those talks of arms reduction with Russia and cutting defense spending was just a dream?

Whew,thank goodness.

it is a pretty old treaty that seems to get some more attention at the moment. NPT.
But he also made clear that the USA will NOT lay down arms.
you maybe want to listen again to his speach, best the full one.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 06:24 PM
So those talks of arms reduction with Russia and cutting defense spending was just a dream?

Whew,thank goodness.

Arms reduction with a specific country and cutting defense spending != "laying down arms".

One is an extreme (laying down arms), one just shifts the meter (cutting defense spending).

You're essentially saying that, if we don't pay some arbitrary amount on defense, then we have no defense at all.

Do you see the logical error, Billy?

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 06:25 PM
Fair enough, I grow weary of your utopia talk as well.

Right, except that I haven't been talking about a Utopia, and have been dealing strictly with reality. Meanwhile, you're dealing with scenarios that have no evidence of happening, and talking about events with no evidence of their happening in the past, and then expect me to buy them hook, line, and sinker simply because you say them. Then you say that because I have no evidence that they didn't occur (which would be asking me to prove a negative, which is a fallacy), that ergo they must have happened because I'm "naive" (an ad hominem). Very convincing. You'll go far with such INCREDIBLY fact-heavy arguments.

But please, I'm curious. What "Utopia talk" do I have? What "Utopia" am I proposing? This interests me.

Can you please explain what my idea of "Utopia" looks like?

Drysdale
17th April 2009, 06:25 PM
Drysdale? what people can be tortured a bit? how do we know one is a terrorist?

I think that's where you have to trust our servicemen will do the right thing.

Kinda like you trust the president will as well.

Drysdale
17th April 2009, 06:29 PM
Right, except that I haven't been talking about a Utopia, and have been dealing strictly with reality. Meanwhile, you're dealing with scenarios that have no evidence of happening, and talking about events with no evidence of their happening in the past, and then expect me to buy them hook, line, and sinker simply because you say them.

But please, I'm curious. What "Utopia talk" do I have? What "Utopia" am I proposing? This interests me.

The utopia of there was no torture in other wars for one.
I've worked with many vets of WWII. I know better,I'll leave it at that.

The utopia of if we treat people right they'll treat us right.
Life does'nt work that way.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 06:29 PM
I think that's where you have to trust our servicemen will do the right thing.Without transparency and a rigidly enforced court of law, it's hard for me to do so. Much like the framers of the constitution didn't expect for anyone, including the President, to be perfect. The U.S. system is actually based around not assuming perfection in any of its members. Unlike, say, Communism, or Fascism.

Kinda like you trust the president will as well.

Yet you don't trust Obama, do you? Nor did I trust Bush. Nor do I think that any of them are, or were perfect.

DC
17th April 2009, 06:31 PM
I think that's where you have to trust our servicemen will do the right thing.

Kinda like you trust the president will as well.

i just cant find words to express how enormly wrong and dangerous that is.....
im sure others will

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 06:32 PM
The utopia of there was no torture in other wars for one.That's not a Utopia. A Utopia is the idea of wanting to create a "perfect land", that's ideal in every way. (Utopia itself translates to "No Land" in Greek, so it also means "A land that doesn't exist"). I'm not positing that we should create a land that's perfect and ideal in every way. This is another case you need to do more research: Utopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia)

And I'm pretty specific about what I'm saying. I do not believe that we tortured in WWII and WWI. That's all. And that's rather specific; the U.S. policies in a particular time frame. In fact, actions we use today in torturing we attacked other countries for doing (such as waterboarding by Japanese interrogators). And even further, the U.S. was rather famous for treating prisoners of war relatively well, so opponent soldiers were more willing to surrender to us in general, as far as I know. Meanwhile, I'd rather have killed myself than be taken into a camp to be tortured for information. Kinda crazy, I know, but hey.

And I'm perfectly willing to change my mind, in the light of new evidence. You, however, are not, because you have an impossible demand for evidence.

And even if the U.S. did torture during WWI or WWII, that would not change my mind about the morality or immorality of torture in general. I brought it up as a rather minor point, notably, to state that, even though we didn't torture, we didn't immediately fall to the Nazis, who would storm our capital and say, "DUMMKÖPFE! YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY WIN A WAR WITHOUT TORTURING PEOPLE! TORTURING IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE INTERROGATION METHOD THAT EVER EXISTED! SILLY AMERICAN SWINE!"

I've worked with many vets of WWII. I know better,I'll leave it at that.Oh that's convincing. You "knew vets". But aren't able to provide any evidence. So I'm supposed to buy that we tortured on your imaginary friends' say-so.

Sorry, empiricism doesn't work that way, and I'm a fan of the scientific method, not the "I said so" method.

The utopia of if we treat people right they'll treat us right.I posited no such thing. I've said several times that I posited no such thing. I've clarified my position on this issue several times. Now you're doing nothing more than being grossly dishonest, because the alternative would be... well, unmentionable on this forum.

But I don't think that acting wrongly will make others less wrong, or that doing great wrongs is the only way to prevent others from doing wrong to you.

Until you can learn to understand another person's position before attempting to attack it, you will always seem the fool in the conversation.

Life does'nt work that way.

Yeah, life generally doesn't tend to work in the imaginary words you see in your delusions, instead of how people actually say it works.

Cobalt
17th April 2009, 06:38 PM
In the United States, a prison sentence is generally the way to bring those deemed as criminals to justice. I know, but still nobody's mentioned the actual crime yet.


If you have an alternative, please bring it up. Fines, house arrest, community service all exist. But that's not what we're really talking about.
However, can you please explain how wanting to see someone serve a jail sentence is in any way comparable to claiming that Muslims are close to invading the United States without evidence, please?
Where'd I say that? Why would I explain that? :confused:

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 06:40 PM
Where'd I say that? Why would I explain that? :confused:

When you say "You're doing the same thing", you generally are equivocating two actions.

Here:

You're saying the exact same thing. "Someone needs to go to jail." No other choices, no other investigation into what's going on, just prison.

Cobalt
17th April 2009, 06:45 PM
When you say "You're doing the same thing", you generally are equivocating two actions.

Here:
I believe there's been a slight misunderstanding. I wasn't attempting to relate that statement to anything regarding a Muslim invasion, just the general statement that it's all "black and white."

He hasn't offered any alternatives to just chucking someone in prison. ETA: For an undefined crime.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 06:49 PM
I believe there's been a slight misunderstanding. I wasn't attempting to relate that statement to anything regarding a Muslim invasion,Well, that's what his statement was in reference to. So when you came in with saying that he was doing the same thing, it came as a little... off.

just the general statement that it's all "black and white."

He hasn't offered any alternatives to just chucking someone in prison. ETA: For an undefined crime.
I don't see that as "black and white". Perhaps simplistic. Although maybe the two mean the same.

I'm not sure what crime it would be specifically, but I thought we did have laws, both national and international, involving torture? I think that, if someone in the command chain broke the laws (mainly the national one, as international law tends to exist outside of local court systems and is more enforced by Reciprocity than courts), they should be brought to justice. Whether it's jail time or a huge fine, I'm not too concerned about. If it involves dissolving an entire department and instating new figures with strict regulations against torture, that's also good.

Drysdale
17th April 2009, 06:52 PM
That's not a Utopia. A Utopia is the idea of a "perfect land", that's ideal in every way. (Utopia itself translates to "No Land" in Greek, so it also means "A land that doesn't exist"). I'm not positing that we should create a land that's perfect and ideal in every way. This is another case you need to do more research: Utopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia)

And I'm pretty specific about what I'm saying. I do not believe that we tortured in WWII and WWI. That's all. And that's rather specific; the U.S. policies in a particular time frame. In fact, actions we use today in torturing we attacked other countries for doing (such as waterboarding by Japanese interrogators).

And I'm perfectly willing to change my mind, in the light of new evidence. You, however, are not, because you have an impossible demand for evidence.

Oh that's convincing. You "knew vets". But aren't able to provide any evidence. So I'm supposed to buy that we tortured on your imaginary friends' say-so.

Sorry, empiricism doesn't work that way, and I'm a fan of the scientific method, not the "I said so" method.

Depends on the definition of torture. I dont care if you believe me or not.
Thats fine. I know what I've heard. Actually it may not have been torture so much as guys beating the hell out of someone and threatening to kill them if they dont admit to where their platoon is. Is that torture?

I posited no such thing. But I don't think that acting wrongly will make others less wrong, or that doing great wrongs is the only way to prevent others from doing wrong to you.

Until you can learn to understand another person's position before attempting to attack it, you will always seem the fool in the conversation.

If we dont get intel how many will be killed then? How would you suggest we gather it? These morals you believe in, if thousands are killed again that may have been prevented using this type of torture in this report would you feel better knowing at least we did'nt torture to get the intel?

I'm not attacking your position so much as disagreeing with it.
To me, since our current enemy is covert in everything they do I think it's justified. They hope to kill any that has a different ideology. Torture for intel is no more immoral in my eyes than them randomly killing innocents.

I'd guess you probably think abortion is ok? I'm inclined to think that's immoral as well unless it's in the first trimester. And I'm hesitant about that except in certain situations. We all have our own morals we deal with and justify.

Cobalt
17th April 2009, 06:53 PM
Well, that's what his statement was in reference to. So when you came in with saying that he was doing the same thing, it came as a little... off.
I apologize. I'm kinda typing as I think. :blush:


I don't see that as "black and white". Perhaps simplistic. Although maybe the two mean the same. Sometimes it does, but not always. I'm not sure about this time.


I'm not sure what crime it would be specifically, but I thought we did have laws, both national and international, involving torture? I think that, if someone in the command chain broke the laws (mainly the national one, as international law tends to exist outside of local court systems and is more enforced by Reciprocity than courts), they should be brought to justice. Whether it's jail time or a huge fine, I'm not too concerned about. If it involves dissolving an entire department and instating new figures with strict regulations against torture, that's also good.

We aren't in disagreement. If someone did **** up, then yes, they should be punished in whatever way the law says they should. As it stands, I don't see how we'd even come to that.

And even if there's no way to prosecute anyone, making a change to laws or clarifying them would be a good thing.

JoeTheJuggler
17th April 2009, 06:59 PM
I know, but still nobody's mentioned the actual crime yet.

Cobalt, you must have me on ignore then. I cited the CAT and the U.S. Code. Torture is a crime. It's an actual crime.

Cobalt
17th April 2009, 07:01 PM
Cobalt, you must have me on ignore then. I cited the CAT and the U.S. Code. Torture is a crime. It's an actual crime.

Great. Who are you charging?

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 07:01 PM
Depends on the definition of torture.EDIT: I see you did clarify later on in the post. Nevermind.

I dont care if you believe me or not.That's fine. If you're not looking for legitimacy, though, I'm not sure what value you think you add to any conversation or debate? I can type any number of random claims without justifying them. In fact, several posters do so, but I wouldn't call them specially fun to debate with. I certainly don't learn anything from them.

Thats fine. I know what I've heard.I heard that someone dreamt that he was attacked by a demoness in his dreams; and that when he woke up, he was wracked with terrible pain, and that this demonstrates that demons exist. This doesn't mean that I suddenly need to believe in a demons and demonesses.

Actually it may not have been torture so much as guys beating the hell out of someone and threatening to kill them if they dont admit to where their platoon is. Is that torture?Yes. Was this a formal method of torture after they were taken as PoWs, or a single squad deciding to bend/break the rules?

If we dont get intel how many will be killed then?

See the "TORTURE IS THE ONLY FORM OF INTERROGATIONLOL" bit before.

How would you suggest we gather it?Through the various non-violent methods of interrogation that have been used throughout history.

Interrogation Techniques (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogation). You'll notice that torture is only one of many listed. Even experts in interrogation tend to agree that torture, while arguably quite speedy, is also quite unreliable. Nothing keeps the tortured person from lying, and many will confess to a crime that they didn't commit just to stop the torture.

These morals you believe in, if thousands are killed again that may have been prevented using this type of torture in this report would you feel better knowing at least we did'nt torture to get the intel?You can only claim the ends justify the means if you can definitively show that the ends would have been otherwise. In almost every case, it's a case of speculation as to whether torture is the only solution or not. You need a high evil in the ends to justify the arguably lower evil in the means, but if that high evil could have been avoided in another way, then the lower evil is still an evil that you just committed.

I'm not attacking your position so much as disagreeing with it.No, you're claiming that I think in terms of a Utopia and that I'm Naive, and then setting up strawmen and putting words in my mouth that I've never said. Not attacking my position my ass.

To me, since our current enemy is covert in everything they do I think it's justified.And I do not.

They hope to kill any that has a different ideology.Yes, they do.

Torture for intel is no more immoral in my eyes than them randomly killing innocents.Don't you understand what you're saying? "Torture for intel is no more immoral than them randomly killing innocents"? You just admitted that you're comparable, even if not necessarily equal, to the very enemy who you seem to think you're superior to!

At which point, what's the point in stopping the terrorists, if we have to become terrorists ourselves? Because, by your own language, you seem to be suggesting that that's what we should do.

I'd guess you probably think abortion is ok?Yes, I'm pro choice. I'm not exactly saying that women should have abortions right and left and have sex just to have abortions, but I don't see how forcing a poor mother to raise a child she can ill afford and doesn't even want would be good for the woman or the child. Nor do I see a fetus as the moral or physical equivalent of a baby or child.

I'm inclined to think that's immoral as well unless it's in the first trimester.I'm hesitant to put a specific border on when abortion should or should not be performed. My position is hazy on that front.

And I'm hesitant about that except in certain situations. We all have our own morals we deal with and justify.Of course we do. The problem is when you force those morals on others, or act out your morals in other people's name, and expect them to lie down and not say anything about it.

It's even worse if you act against the very morals that you've espoused in the past (such as the case of committing torture even though torture is against the laws you're supposed to abide by).

DC
17th April 2009, 07:02 PM
Depends on the definition of torture. I dont care if you believe me or not.
Thats fine. I know what I've heard. Actually it may not have been torture so much as guys beating the hell out of someone and threatening to kill them if they dont admit to where their platoon is. Is that torture?



If we dont get intel how many will be killed then? How would you suggest we gather it? These morals you believe in, if thousands are killed again that may have been prevented using this type of torture in this report would you feel better knowing at least we did'nt torture to get the intel?

I'm not attacking your position so much as disagreeing with it.
To me, since our current enemy is covert in everything they do I think it's justified. They hope to kill any that has a different ideology. Torture for intel is no more immoral in my eyes than them randomly killing innocents.

I'd guess you probably think abortion is ok? I'm inclined to think that's immoral as well unless it's in the first trimester. And I'm hesitant about that except in certain situations. We all have our own morals we deal with and justify.

who exactly is "They" and how many are they?

DC
17th April 2009, 07:04 PM
retracted

Drysdale
17th April 2009, 07:11 PM
Lonewulf, I dont know the exact details. I'm only relaying what Ive heard vets talking about in nonformal settings. Old guys reminiscing basically. I worked for the VA for 7 yrs.
I feel guilty even talking about this so I'm gonna drop this aspect.

Drysdale
17th April 2009, 07:16 PM
Don't you understand what you're saying? "Torture for intel is no more immoral than them randomly killing innocents"? You just admitted that you're comparable, even if not necessarily equal, to the very enemy who you seem to think you're superior to!

At which point, what's the point in stopping the terrorists, if we have to become terrorists ourselves? Because, by your own language, you seem to be suggesting that that's what we should do.

I disagree. Just because we use mental torture which is what this is, we are'nt going to become terrorists.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 07:16 PM
From the sounds of it, it sounds like a group of people in the Army that unofficially, informally decided to extract quick information out of a recently captured prisoner to obtain information. Of course I'm not going to say that this never happened. I'm sure there are corrupt cops that do the same thing.

I'm not saying that I don't understand it, or that they were necessarily bad people. I do not think, however, that they were abiding by the standard operating procedures of the armed forces at the time, though, nor that formal torture (as in, part of SOP) was committed during WWII or WWI (okay, I might be wrong about WWI, but we weren't exactly floating around in that conflict for long enough to really have many official interrogations, far as I know).

Informal actions that soldiers commit, irrespective of SOP or laws, wasn't really what I was talking or thinking about when I brought up torture used during those wars. Even if they did such things, I doubt that the balance of war was directly swayed by these actions.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 07:18 PM
I disagree. Just because we use mental torture which is what this is, we are'nt going to become terrorists.

We won't become terrorists, but we're committing immoral actions. As you said:

"Torture for intel is no more immoral than them randomly killing innocents"

Once you use that line of reasoning, where does it stop? As long as the other side keeps ramping up the "evil actions", then you can keep arguing for more and more evil actions yourself.

I'm not sure where you can draw the line between mental or physical torture. If you make someone's body think that it's drowning, that denotes something more than mental.

I mean, I suppose we're not in complete disagreement on this point, as I'm alright with "murdering" someone in self defense, if that's the only option available to me to protect myself or my family. But I think that there's a line between self defense and engaging in torture as an interrogation technique.

Drysdale
17th April 2009, 07:26 PM
If this were an army of a nation we're talking about I'd probably concur.

But we are talking about bad dudes that really dont give a flip who they kill including themselves and rigging their own children with bombs.
I just cant feel much sympathy for that ideology. If that makes me just as bad so be it.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 07:28 PM
If this were an army of a nation we're talking about I'd probably concur.

But we are talking about bad dudes that really dont give a flip who they kill including themselves and rigging their own children with bombs.
I just cant feel much sympathy for that ideology. If that makes me just as bad so be it.

The bolded shows that I'm dealing with such an alien mindset, I'm not even sure how to debate you. I'd like to think that I'm above Islamic terrorists, superior to, better than, with greater values to hold to. The very idea of dragging myself down to a lower level to deal with them is repugnant to me.

I'd be willing to, if I had no other alternative. But I'm not convinced that there is no other alternative, or that the ends justify the means.

Furthermore, adding exceptions to a law or social more, in my mind, devalues that law or social more as you do so. I'd like for our country to maintain a certain reputation, and that reputation does not include "tortures prisoners or detainees of any kind".

JoeTheJuggler
17th April 2009, 07:38 PM
If this were an army of a nation we're talking about I'd probably concur.

But we are talking about bad dudes that really dont give a flip who they kill including themselves and rigging their own children with bombs.

How do you know that?

JoeTheJuggler
17th April 2009, 07:45 PM
Great. Who are you charging?

If I were A.G., I'd conduct a full-scale investigation of the numerous allegations (and admissions) of torture and charge the operatives who did the dirty work and everyone in the chain of command (all the way up to Dubya) who either issued such orders or were effectively in command.

Surely you're not saying these things didn't happen?

Cheney and company have admitted to at least some types of torture. They just tried to change the rules to say that what they did doesn't fulfill the definition of torture even though, as I've shown, it most certainly does.

JoeTheJuggler
17th April 2009, 07:56 PM
I'm not sure where you can draw the line between mental or physical torture. If you make someone's body think that it's drowning, that denotes something more than mental.
You're right. Again, see the quotations I provided that specify the legal definition of torture. Mental pain is included. The threat of imminent death is included.

I mean, I suppose we're not in complete disagreement on this point, as I'm alright with "murdering" someone in self defense, if that's the only option available to me to protect myself or my family. But I think that there's a line between self defense and engaging in torture as an interrogation technique.
Yes--killing in self defense is not murder. (In other words, "self defense" is a legitimate defense in a murder case.)

Torture is defined as being part of an interrogation--to extract information or a confession.

There is another usage of "torture" in the various states' criminal law (I'm talking states of the U.S.). It's a different thing really--the stuff that doesn't involve any kind of interrogation and therefore doesn't involve agents of the government (military personnel, CIA agents, etc.). The states handle this sort of torture in different ways and offer various definitions. Generally speaking, there is no state crime of "torture" when used this way (not part of an interrogation). Instead, torture is seen as an aggravating factor in sentencing for other crimes (rape, murder, kidnap, etc.). Here's a pretty good paper (http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/4/2/1/1/pages142113/p142113-1.php) that surveys current state law on this type of torture.

JoeTheJuggler
17th April 2009, 08:05 PM
Cobalt, if you want more specifics of the low-level operatives that I think should be investigated (and most likely prosecuted), I'd start with the people involved in these stories:

The story of a taxi-driver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_(human_rights_victim)) with no ties to terrorism who was tortured to death during interrogation by U.S. Army personnel.
ETA: Basically someone in the wrong place at the wrong time that Drysdale has no qualms about torturing because he knows the guy was a "bad dude" and the actions of terrorists (not Dilawar) justify reducing ourselves to immoral and illegal behavior.

More stories of torture deaths (http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/7-us-operatives-torture-detainees-to-death-in-afghanistan-and-iraq/) based on autopsy reports.

This PDF document (http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/un/2006/0222reportresponsibility.pdf) is a report covering some of the same information.

The tortured to death cases will certainly be the easiest since they even fulfill the absurd re-definition of "torture" provided by Yoo and Gonzales--that the pain must be equal to that of organ failure, loss of bodily function or even death.

Texas
17th April 2009, 08:07 PM
1) Burden of Proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_Proof).

2) Negative Proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof).

You just lost on two counts. Actually, several more, but I don't see why I should spend any more time on you.

Will the Guardian do as a source?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/nov/12/topstories3.secondworldwar


The British government operated a secret torture centre during the second world war to extract information and confessions from German prisoners, according to official papers which have been unearthed by the Guardian.
More than 3,000 prisoners passed through the centre, where many were systematically beaten, deprived of sleep, forced to stand still for more than 24 hours at a time and threatened with execution or unnecessary surgery.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 08:09 PM
Will the Guardian do as a source?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/nov/12/topstories3.secondworldwar


.

When did I say Britain, or the Allies in general? I made it quite clear that I was referring to the United States.

I'm quite saddened to hear about this, though.

I'm not sure why you responded to my post where I was pointing out the fallacy of the statement "You can't prove they didn't", in particular. But I'm more than willing to overlook that.

Texas
17th April 2009, 08:14 PM
When did I say Britain, or the Allies in general? I made it quite clear that I was referring to the United States.

I'm quite saddened to hear about this, though.

I'm not sure why you responded to my post where I was pointing out the fallacy of the statement "You can't prove they didn't", in particular. But I'm more than willing to overlook that.

http://hnn.us/articles/30624.html

Concerning the second and third classifications of Nazi POWs, some are more skeptical of the treatment these POWs received. In 1989, a Canadian novelist by the name of Jacques Bacque wrote Other Losses, which contained accusations against General Eisenhower in this regard. Bacque argued that Eisenhower’s misdeeds led to the starvation of "over 800,000, almost certainly over 800,000 and quite possibly a million" German POWs. Bacque claimed that Einsehower nefariously got around the Geneva Conventions by changing the status of the Germans prisoners from "Prisoner of War" to "Disarmed Enemy Combatant." Since, according to the Geneva Conventions, POWs are to be fed military rations while there are much more relaxed standards for feeding "Disarmed Enemy Combatants," Bacque alleged that Eisenhower himself was to blame, even citing one instance of Eisenhower turning away a train full of food from entering a Nazi camp

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 08:18 PM
Huh. So they changed the name from POW, and used this to justify atrocities. Sounds familiar! Redefine your terms, and use it to justify wrongdoing.

Sad. I guess the more things change...

So, do you think that this swayed the course of the war? Or that such actions were justified?

Texas
17th April 2009, 08:20 PM
Huh. So they changed the name from POW, and used this to justify atrocities. Sounds familiar! Redefine your terms, and use it to justify wrongdoing.

Sad. I guess the more things change...

So, do you think that this swayed the course of the war? Or that such actions were justified?You asked for examples of WW2 torture I gave them to you. War is hell and it always will be.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 08:21 PM
You asked for examples of WW2 torture I gave them to you.I was bringing such a thing up to make an overall point, in case you didn't notice. I recommend you read all of my posts, and not just take a few tidbits here and there.

And this is assuming that your source is absolutely reliable.

I do find it interesting that other countries were cracked down on for torturing our POWs, but we seem to feel that its justified when we do it ourselves. What does that tell you about us?

War is hell and it always will be.

So this justifies the actions done during it? Torture is justified because "war is hell"?

Texas
17th April 2009, 08:25 PM
I was bringing such a thing up to make an overall point, in case you didn't notice. I recommend you read all of my posts, and not just take a few tidbits here and there.



So this justifies the actions done during it? Torture is justified because "war is hell"?

If that's so, why not just bomb Mecha and Medina? War is hell, so let's bring hell on earth.War is not a sporting event. You can play a baseball game and lose and go home and play the next day. In war you win or you lose and the penalty for losing is death. As someone pointed out, you live in a fantasy Utopia. That is not an option for those charged with winning a war. War is all or nothing.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 08:29 PM
War is not a sporting event. You can play a baseball game and lose and go home and play the next day. In war you win or you lose and the penalty for losing is death.So we do whatever we can, at all costs, no matter if it destroys any and all American values or our own laws. And we can, and should hide this as much as possible, because we don't want the world to see our actions, or our own citizens to recognize what we did as wrong. We should then accuse other countries of doing what we ourselves did, and demand an international court of justice to find them guilty of war crimes, even though we do not want them to try ourselves.

And to your mind, this is how it should be?

As someone pointed out, you live in a fantasy Utopia. And you saying this does not impress me any more. I can say that Drysdale's living in a fantasy Utopia because we're supposed to "trust the courts to do the right thing", without any transparency, and to just trust that they would never ever torture an innocent person (because courts are more likely to not find innocent men guilty if they aren't run with full transparency and with fairness in mind).

You live in a "We can and should do Whatever We Want" fantasyland, without recognizing any other alternatives or thinking that anything YOU want to do is the Only and True Way. Sadly, this is how groupthink tends to work as well, and why rational men can make irrational decisions.

That is not an option for those charged with winning a war. War is all or nothing.

So do whatever we want, and hide what we can, because we know that it's right?

So you're stating that if we did not starve these German prisoners, we would have lost the war? That it was absolutely necessary? This is your position, is it not?

But tell me! Since you're such a good mouthpiece for Drysdale, perhaps you can tell me where this imminent Muslim invasion into the United States will take place? Perhaps you can tell me how it's going to go down? This obviously is the opposite of living in a Utopia, according to you two, so tell me how this claim makes any sense outside of your own heads?

Texas
17th April 2009, 08:38 PM
=Lonewulf;4629920]So we do whatever we can, at all costs, no matter if it destroys any and all American values or our own laws. And we can, and should hide this as much as possible, because we don't want the world to see our false actions, or our own citizens to recognize what we did as wrong.

American values mean nothing if you lose the war. The reason some things are hidden is to allow those like you to feel good about yourself while hard men do YOUR dirty work.

And you saying this does not impress me any more. You live in a "We can do Whatever We Want" fantasyland, without recognizing any other alternatives or thinking that anything YOU want to do is the Only and True Way.

I live in a world that has thousands of people dying daily because of the same people we are fighting against. So yes we should use every tool we have to defeat them.

So you're stating that if we did not starve these German prisoners, we would have lost the war? This is your position, is it not?

No the object was to make damn sure, once and for all, no German government would ever have the will to try to conquer the world again. The same reasoning goes for the Japanese and the nuclear attacks.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 08:40 PM
American values mean nothing if you lose the war. The reason some things are hidden is to allow those like you to feel good about yourself while hard men do YOUR dirty work.American values mean nothing if you get rid of them to win the war, either.

And like I said, the ends only justify the means if you can demonstrate that those means were the only alternative. You're free to prove me wrong on that point, though.

I live in a world that has thousands of people dying daily because of the same people we are fighting against. So yes we should use every tool we have to defeat them.No matter how many innocents get hurt.

But tell me! How many more are you saving by torturing? Can you give me any rational numbers, or do I just take your word on it because you're imminently wiser than me just because you say so?

Here's a question: Is torture the only interrogation technique around? Why or why not?

Are there any problems with torture? Anything that actually experts have said about the problems of torture? I can cite quite a few criticisms, but I'm sure that, since you're so much wiser than me, you know of all of this, right?

No the object was to make damn sure, once and for all, no German government would ever have the will to try to conquer the world again.What, really? Starve a bunch of soldiers to "make sure no German government would ever have the will..."?

Wow. How amazingly moronic. I'm glad you aren't in charge.

The same reasoning goes for the Japanese and the nuclear attacks.

Uhm, no. That was to stop the war with the least amount of losses possible. Not to make sure "that no Japanese government would ever do that again". Do you really assume that some people around a table said, "We have to make sure the Japanese government will NEVER attack us again!", and someone else said, "I know! Let's drop the atom bombs! There's no other reason to, but it'll make damn sure that Japan and similar countries will never attack us again!"

Sorry, but thanks for playing. You just showed complete ignorance of history. You can play later after some studying, though.

Texas
17th April 2009, 08:58 PM
=Lonewulf;4629950]American values mean nothing if you get rid of them to win the war, either.

Tell that to the Japanese Americans that FDR interned. Your naivete is scary.

.

But tell me! How many more are you saving by torturing? Can you give me any rational numbers, or do I just take your word on it because you're imminently wiser than me just because you say so?

We don't know since all Obama released were the top secret documents discussing the techniques to be used. He didn't release what the results of those interrogations were. Doesn't that appear strange to you?


Here's a question: Is torture the only interrogation technique around? Why or why not?
When nothing else works the yes and that is what the memos are all about, the subject was not cooperating using standard methods.

Are there any problems with torture? Anything that actually experts have said about the problems of torture? I can cite quite a few criticisms, but I'm sure that, since you're so much wiser than me, you know of all of this, right?
You can cite all you want but when it comes to extracting information that can be verified then yes it works. That is far different than trying to force a confession to a crime just to get the process to stop.



What, really? Starve a bunch of soldiers to "make sure no German government would ever have the will..."?

Wow. How amazingly moronic. I'm glad you aren't in charge.

Tell that to Ike the Supreme allied commander of WW2. I will not second guess the man that won the war.



Uhm, no. That was to stop the war with the least amount of losses possible. Not to make sure "that no Japanese government would ever do that again". Do you really assume that some people around a table said, "We have to make sure the Japanese government will NEVER attack us again!", and someone else said, "I know! Let's drop the atom bombs! There's no other reason to, but it'll make damn sure that Japan and similar countries will never attack us again!"

The Japanese have not fired a shot in anger since then so you may want to be careful about telling others to learn their history.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 09:18 PM
Tell that to the Japanese Americans that FDR interned. Your naivete is scary.Yes, I would. That's not seen as a very justifiable decision. It's rather telling that you think it is, though.

Neither did Jefferson, another "Utopian" in your view, I think, think that similar internment during his times were justified.

But I'm sure you think Jefferson was just a silly idealist too. ;)


Tell that to Ike the Supreme allied commander of WW2. I will not second guess the man that won the war.

I will, even if I were to assume your source was correct. According to what I'm reading, it is very dubious. But you buy it hook, line, and sinker simply because it justifies your beliefs that you already hold.

Typical.

Well, as long as we're following the word of mythical figures, I kind of like Hercules. I won't question someone that went through those seven labors! So I'm gonna go ahead and tear up a castle and kill people randomly 'cause he's kind of cool.


The Japanese have not fired a shot in anger since then so you may want to be careful about telling others to learn their history.
So you really, honestly believe that we dropped the bombs to "keep the Japanese in line", and the only thing keeping them back is fear.

Wow.

Like I said, how can I argue with such an alien psychology?

I bet when you imagine Japan, you imagine a bunch of buck-toothed, narrow-eyed eeeevil monsters that are just waiting to pounce on America, but cower in fear at our atomic might. Yes, that's the Japan of today!

There was no other reasons to drop those bombs, nope! Just to put the Fear of God into them! It wasn't to, you know, attempt to prevent as many losses on either side as possible, because a land war would have taken up lots of resources and human lives, and fire bombings were having no effect. NONONONO, Lonewulf is a Utopian, he can't possibly understand it! It's to put the fear of God into them, no other reason whatsoever!

And Lonewulf the Utopian is the one that doesn't understand his history. Because Japan isn't shooting at us, and the only reason why MUST be because of the bombs! Not because they're actually benefiting, economically and socially, through a rather close alliance with western civilizations in the modern world.

No no no, they're a bunch of Yellow Demons just waiting to pounce, but too afraid to!

*blargh*

I suppose this is what happens to that peculiar brand of Southerner that doesn't bother to actually go out into the world and explore outside of his strange little world.

Cobalt
17th April 2009, 09:25 PM
If I were A.G., I'd conduct a full-scale investigation of the numerous allegations (and admissions) of torture and charge the operatives who did the dirty work and everyone in the chain of command (all the way up to Dubya) who either issued such orders or were effectively in command. Great! That's what SHOULD happen. So far though everyone's just kind of standing around going "rabble rabble rabble."


Surely you're not saying these things didn't happen?
Boy, if I did say that, I must have been really high.


Cheney and company have admitted to at least some types of torture. They just tried to change the rules to say that what they did doesn't fulfill the definition of torture even though, as I've shown, it most certainly does.

Who's definition do you want to follow then?

Texas
17th April 2009, 09:25 PM
Yes, I would. That's not seen as a very justifiable decision. It's rather telling that you think it is, though.

Then why did FDR make that decision? Here's a hint, as on 911 we were the victim of a sneak attack and he knew that all out war was the only answer.


So you really, honestly believe that we dropped the bombs to "keep the Japanese in line", and the only thing keeping them back is fear.

Wow.

Like I said, how can I argue with such an alien psychology?

All that is holding them back is that they were so completely and totally defeated that they lost all appetite for war. Look at Japan's history prior to WW2. It was the most warlike country in Asia.

I bet when you imagine Japan, you imagine a bunch of buck-toothed, narrow-eyed eeeevil monsters that are just waiting to pounce on America, but cower in fear at our atomic might. Yes, that's the Japan of today!

There was no other reasons to drop those bombs, nope! Just to put the Fear of God into them! It wasn't to, you know, attempt to prevent as many losses on either side as possible, because a land war would have taken up lots of resources and human lives, and fire bombings were having no effect. NONONONO, Lonewulf is a Utopian, he can't possibly understand it! It's to put the fear of God into them, no other reason whatsoever!
*blargh*

That is just blather so no response is required.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 09:29 PM
Then why did FDR make that decision? Here's a hint, as on 911 we were the victim of a sneak attack and he knew that all out war was the only answer.
Right, so lock up as many Japanese as possible, just based on their race, and nothing else at all, and then sit high and pretty! Nothing questionable about that at all.

I'm sure Jefferson would approve! Well, except for the fact that he didn't really approve of a similar thing being done to the French, right?

All that is holding them back is that they were so completely and totally defeated that they lost all appetite for war.Right right, we keep hearing what it's like in your strange little world.

Texas
17th April 2009, 09:30 PM
So you really, honestly believe that we dropped the bombs to "keep the Japanese in line", and the only thing keeping them back is fear.

Wow.

Like I said, how can I argue with such an alien psychology?

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Choice_o f_targets


The goal of the weapon was to convince Japan to surrender unconditionally in accordance with the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. The Target Committee stated that "It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value."[13]

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 09:38 PM
Yes. To get them to surrender unconditionally. Because if they didn't surrender, troops would die, and a land war would be far more costly, in lives and equipment (on both sides) than dropping the bombs. D'uh. That was my position from the beginning. Fire bombings were also ineffective, and every other version of conventional weaponry that we had at the time.

You were the one who was making the "Keep Them From Ever Attacking Us Ever Again And Put The Fear of God in Themlol" argument, which your link does not support. Nice try, though. I give you a C for effort.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 09:42 PM
Anyone remember when Texas linked this, and has used it as the mainstay of his arguments? http://hnn.us/articles/30624.html

Yeah, here's the wikipedia article on the book it's based on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Losses

Notice the Criticisms page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Losses#Criticism_of_Other_Losses

Note the quote from Stephen Ambrose:

Mr. Bacque is wrong on every major charge and nearly all his minor ones. Eisenhower was not a Hitler, he did not run death camps, German prisoners did not die by the hundreds of thousands, there was a severe food shortage in 1945, there was nothing sinister or secret about the "disarmed enemy forces" designation or about the column "other losses." Mr. Bacque's "missing million" were old men and young boys in the Volkssturm (People's Militia) released without formal discharge and transfers of POWs to other allies control areas. Maj. Ruediger Overmans of the German Office of Military History in Freiburg who wrote the final volume of the official German history of the war estimated that the total death by all causes of German prisoners in American hands could not have been greater than 56,000 approximately 1% of the over 5,000,000 German POWs in Allied hands exclusive of the Soviets. Eisenhower's calculations as to how many people he would be required to feed in occupied Germany in 1945-46 were too low and he had been asking for more food shipments since February 1945. He had badly underestimated the number of German soldiers surrendering to the Western Allies; more than five million, instead of the anticipated three million as German soldiers crossed the Elbe River to escape the Russians. So too with German civilians - about 13 million altogether crossing the Elbe to escape the Russians, and the number of slave laborers and displaced persons liberated was almost 8 million instead of the 5 million expected. In short, Eisenhower faced shortages even before he learned that there were at least 17 million more people to feed in Germany than he had expected not to mention all of the other countries in war ravaged Europe, the Philippines, Okinawa and Japan. All Europe went on rations for the next three years, including Britain, until the food crisis was over.[28]

But it justified Texas' argument, so it must have been trustworthy! I'd trust old Ike, even if it's based on a book that's probably completely wrong! Good ol' Ike.

So not only did Ike NOT starve prisoners, but he actually ASKED FOR MORE FOOD SHIPMENTS when he realized he didn't have enough. Good think Ike can teach us all a little about humanity... except maybe Texas, he's probably unteachable at this point.

Too bad "Realists" seem to not like reality so much when it comes to justifying their viewpoints.

Another quote:

It is not necessary to review here Bacque's extravagant statistical claims which are the heart of his conspiracy theory. The eight scholars who gathered in New Orleans and contributed to Eisenhower and the German POWs: Facts against Falsehood (1992) refuted Bacque's wily misinterpretations of statistics and oral history evidence in detail. Numerous reviews of the book written by the top talent in the military history profession such as John Keegan and Russel Weigley were persuaded by the findings of the book. These findings have since been further solidified by detailed case studies on individual American POW camps in Germany hastily built at the end of the war like Christof Strauss's exhaustive Heidelberg dissertation on the POW and internment in the Heilbronn camp.

The mountain of evidence has been building that Bacque's charge of the "missing million" supposedly perishing in the American (and French) POW camps in Germany and France is based on completely faulty interpretation of statistical data. There was never any serious disagreement that the German POWs were treated badly by the U.S. Army and suffered egregiously in these camps in the first weeks after the end of the war. That the chaos of the war's end would also produce potentially mismatches and errors in record keeping should surprise no one either. But there was NO AMERICAN POLICY to starve them to death as Bacque asserts and NO COVER UP either after the war. No question about it, there were individual American camp guards who took revenge on German POWs based on their hatred of the Nazis.

Want to keep pushing this Conspiracy Theory for America, Texas, we can go onto the CT forums. Looks like this belongs there. :)

And, to add to the amusement (which I've been building up for my own guilty pleasure, I admit), it's not even a plausable conspiracy theory. Notice!:

Overmans states that, comporting with the most basic matters of common sense, "if indeed 726,000 soldiers had died in the American camps (Bacque's number excluding those who supposedly died in French custody or after discharge), what became of the bodies?"[40] Given that the Rheinwiesenlager stretched along 200 kilometers of the Rhine river, "Bacque's 726,000 dead would mean roughly 3,600 dead per kilometer or 5,800 per mile -- better than one corpse per foot. Yet despite the widespread construction work carried out after the war, not a single one of these legion of dead was found."[40]

Villa states that, by Bacque's reasoning, George C. Marshall, who gave SHAEF as much or more attention to detail than did Eisenhower, would be similarly guitly, perhaps more so under his reasoning, though "Bacque" who cares little for exploring the context, does not even raise the question."[41] Villa states that "It is a virtual impossibility that Eisenhower could have executed an extermination policy on his own" and "a near absolute impossibility that Marshall would not have noticed it, let alone that he would ever have tolerated it" and "what about the scores of officers and millions of soldiers who served under Eisenhower?"[42]

A million dead bodies would be pretty hard to conceal. Most of the masters of genocide (Hitler, Stalin, etc.) have been relatively ineffective at it, given how many tend to uncover them. Why would Ike suddenly be a master of it and manage to keep it a secret from all levels of the command chain, only to be uncovered recently?

And not only that, but this was concealed to the point where we would only find out about it recently! Yet, according to Texas, this was all done to "keep Germany from ever doing such a thing again". Yessiree... the SECRET murder of a "missing" million people who's bodies were never uncovered or found was done to "teach Germany a lesson" and keep them from wanting to dominate the world again (because killing 1 million people would SO convince Germany not to do that). Much like a father can spank the voo-doo doll of his son in private and never tell the son to "teach him a lesson". Makes total sense!

Because, you know, humiliating Germany had worked SO well after WWI, right?

Also, the Apollo Moon Landing was a hoax, Britain bribed Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, aliens kidnapped Elvis, and Area 51 has a UFO. :)

Texas
17th April 2009, 10:02 PM
Anyone remember when Texas linked this, and has used it as the mainstay of his arguments? http://hnn.us/articles/30624.html

Yeah, here's the wikipedia article on the book it's based on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Losses

Notice the Criticisms page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Losses#Criticism_of_Other_Losses

Note the quote from Stephen Ambrose:



But it justified Texas' argument, so it must have been trustworthy! I'd trust old Ike, even if it's based on a book that's probably completely wrong! Good ol' Ike.

So not only did Ike NOT starve prisoners, but he actually ASKED FOR MORE FOOD SHIPMENTS when he realized he didn't have enough. Good think Ike can teach us all a little about humanity... except maybe Texas, he's probably unteachable at this point.

Too bad "Realists" seem to not like reality so much when it comes to justifying their viewpoints.

Another quote:



Want to keep pushing this Conspiracy Theory for America, Texas, we can go onto the CT forums. Looks like this belongs there. :)

I can go all night.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower#World_War_II

Eisenhower served as Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army from 1945–48.


Eisenhower as General of the Army.
The Supreme Commanders on June 5, 1945 in Berlin: Bernard Montgomery, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Georgy Zhukov and Jean de Lattre de Tassigny.Following the German unconditional surrender on May 8, 1945, Eisenhower was appointed Military Governor of the U.S. Occupation Zone, based in Frankfurt am Main. Germany was divided into four Occupation Zones, one each for the U.S., Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. Upon full discovery of the death camps that were part of the Final Solution (Holocaust), he ordered camera crews to comprehensively document evidence of the atrocity for use in the war crimes tribunals. He made the decision to reclassify German prisoners of war (POWs) in U.S. custody as Disarmed Enemy Forces (DEFs), thus depriving them of the protection of the Geneva convention. As DEFs, their food rations could be lowered and they could be compelled to serve as unfree labor (see Rheinwiesenlager). Eisenhower was an early supporter of the Morgenthau Plan to permanently remove Germany's industrial capacity to wage future wars. In November 1945 he approved the distribution of 1000 free copies of Morgenthau's book Germany is Our Problem, which promoted and described the plan in detail, to American military officials in occupied Germany. Historian Stephen Ambrose draws the conclusion that, despite Eisenhower's later claims the act was not an endorsement of the Morgenthau plan, Eisenhower both approved of the plan and had previously given Morgenthau at least some of his ideas about how Germany should be treated.[36] He also incorporated officials from Morgenthau's Treasury into the army of occupation. These were commonly called "Morgenthau boys" for their zeal in interpreting the occupation directive JCS 1067, which had been heavily influenced by Morgenthau and his plan, as strictly as possible.[37]

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

The Morgenthau Plan was a plan for the occupation of Germany after World War II that advocated measures intended to remove Germany's ability to wage war. It was proposed by and subsequently named after Henry Morgenthau, Jr., United States Secretary of the Treasury.

In the original proposal this was to be achieved in three main steps.

Germany was to be partitioned into two independent states.
Germany's main centers of mining and industry, including the Saar area, the Ruhr area and Upper Silesia were to be internationalized or annexed by neighboring nations.
All heavy industry was to be dismantled or otherwise destroyed.


In 1945 the German Red Cross was dissolved[11][12] , and the International Red Cross and other international relief agencies were kept from helping ethnic Germans through strict controls on supplies and on travel.[13] The few agencies permitted to operate within Germany, such as the indigenous Caritas Verband, were not allowed to use imported supplies. When the Vatican attempted to transmit food supplies from Chile to German infants[14] the U.S. State Department forbade it.[15] In early October 1945 the UK government privately acknowledged in a cabinet meeting that, German civilian adult death rates had risen to four times the pre-war levels and death rates amongst the German children had risen by 10 times the pre-war levels

Texas
17th April 2009, 10:11 PM
Yes. To get them to surrender unconditionally. Because if they didn't surrender, troops would die, and a land war would be far more costly, in lives and equipment (on both sides) than dropping the bombs. D'uh. That was my position from the beginning. Fire bombings were also ineffective, and every other version of conventional weaponry that we had at the time.

You were the one who was making the "Keep Them From Ever Attacking Us Ever Again And Put The Fear of God in Themlol" argument, which your link does not support. Nice try, though. I give you a C for effort.

You are amazingly obtuse. There was NO mention of lessening troop deaths in the targeting discussions as the following top secret document shows:

http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html

A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 10:12 PM
Assuming that everything in here is absolutely, 100% correct (because we know all Wikipedia articles are, especially those without apparent citations)... which I WILL be looking into, with the help of a historian friend of mine... (yeah, because who would ever question a Wikipedia article?)

I don't see anything about these alleged 1 million people that starved. Are you retracting that statement and admitting your error, or are you dishonestly chugging along and thinking you can get away with lying?

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 10:13 PM
You are amazingly obtuse. There was NO mention of lessening troop deaths in the targeting discussions as the following top secret document shows:

http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html

Ah, I see. So we didn't care about the troops. All of the arguments that everyone has ever made about the bombs having been dropped, all lies. It was done to Put The Fear of God into them, and the only reason the Japanese are completely peaceful is because of total and complete fear of us.

The "psychological impact" has nothing to do with the impact in getting them to surrender, so we would stop losing ships and stop losing men. It has to do with everything you want it to be, and you're not reading anything into it. Instead, I'm the one that's obtuse, because I actually care about history and have studied these things in a context in which I was not looking to satisfy my own ego.

Right.

I'm going to go play my videogames. You have fun in your world, okay?

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 10:15 PM
EDIT: Whoops, I mixed some stuff up. Need to edit this. My mistake.

Texas
17th April 2009, 10:19 PM
Assuming that everything in here is absolutely, 100% correct (because we know all Wikipedia articles are, especially those without apparent citations)... which I WILL be looking into, with the help of a historian friend of mine... (yeah, because who would ever question a Wikipedia article?)

I don't see anything about these alleged 1 million people that starved. Are you retracting that statement and admitting your error, or are you dishonestly chugging along and thinking you can get away with lying?

I didn't claim that Ike starved anyone. I stated that he did not treat German POWs as POWs and he didn't. He used them as forced labor and he reclassified them to avoid Geneva convention protections. He also showed very little mercy to the German population. A position I applaud given their history, like Japan, of being prone to world conquest. It is no accident that both Germany and Japan have not been involved in any aggressive act since the end of WW2. In war you had better be damn sure you win convincingly and completely using every tool legal or not to do it.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 10:23 PM
This is what Texas quoted:

Concerning the second and third classifications of Nazi POWs, some are more skeptical of the treatment these POWs received. In 1989, a Canadian novelist by the name of Jacques Bacque wrote Other Losses, which contained accusations against General Eisenhower in this regard. Bacque argued that Eisenhower’s misdeeds led to the starvation of "over 800,000, almost certainly over 800,000 and quite possibly a million" German POWs. Bacque claimed that Einsehower nefariously got around the Geneva Conventions by changing the status of the Germans prisoners from "Prisoner of War" to "Disarmed Enemy Combatant." Since, according to the Geneva Conventions, POWs are to be fed military rations while there are much more relaxed standards for feeding "Disarmed Enemy Combatants," Bacque alleged that Eisenhower himself was to blame, even citing one instance of Eisenhower turning away a train full of food from entering a Nazi camp

Texas claims that he didn't argue that Ike starved anyone. Yet he quotes this article, Post #163

And he claims I'm obtuse?

Texas
17th April 2009, 10:23 PM
I'm going to go play my videogames.

That is just sad. I know understand what I am dealing with. Have fun.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 10:26 PM
That is just sad.What? That I play videogames?

Wow, I didn't realize that it took that much. I play Legend of Zelda! I play EVE! Wooooo... the Boogey Game is going to get you!

I find it hilarious that you think that you can suddenly understand my character in a different fashion by just knowing that I play videogames... :D You seem to think that gamers are some minority group. Talk about living in your own little world, but we had established that already.

I know understand what I am dealing with.Well, I "know" understand what I've been dealing with ever since you opened your mouth from the beginning of this discussion to defend some guy that thinks that the MUSLIMS ARE GOING TO INVADE SOON! So yeah.

Have fun.

Thank you.

By the way. Quoting an article in which it states that around 800,000 German POVs were starved by Ike, then claiming that you never claimed that Ike did that? Then stating that the only reason to starve all those people is to prevent the Germans from ever attacking anyone again, before saying you never claimed that? Not seen as very thorough in Historical circles. Just to let you know.

Lonewulf
17th April 2009, 10:33 PM
I didn't claim that Ike starved anyone.
Texas says this, Post #184.


Post #169, last quote of mine:

So you're stating that if we did not starve these German prisoners, we would have lost the war? This is your position, is it not?

Texas said:

No the object was to make damn sure, once and for all, no German government would ever have the will to try to conquer the world again. The same reasoning goes for the Japanese and the nuclear attacks.

For someone not claiming that Ike starved anyone, you're pretty good at acting like you think he did...

Texas
17th April 2009, 10:48 PM
Texas says this, Post #184.


Post #169, last quote of mine:



Texas said:



For someone not claiming that Ike starved anyone, you're pretty good at acting like you think he did...

Go back up the thread and look at the portion I bolded. I didn't even notice the accusation of starvation and had I done so I would not have linked it. Ike's reclassification of POWs and using them as forced labor is well established and that was what I was searching for.

DC
18th April 2009, 01:13 AM
its is extremly disgusting to see the extremists justify TORTURE....
some US American citizens are really trying to justify TORTURE.....
it wasnt enough to that they used guantanamo to lock up people for years without a trial, just based on suspicion of a potential terrorist.

and when im not mistaken Texas even belives in God and Jesus and all that crazy stuff..... How extremly can they stretch the bible?

Torture.....

Oliver
18th April 2009, 02:05 AM
This is some seriously disgusting **** I stopped to read after a pretty short while :( :

An 18-page memo (http://72.3.233.244/pdfs/safefree/olc_08012002_bybee.pdf) [PDF], dated August 1, 2002
from Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

A 46-page memo (http://72.3.233.244/pdfs/safefree/olc_05102005_bradbury46pg.pdf) [PDF], dated May 10, 2005
from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

A 20-page memo (http://72.3.233.244/pdfs/safefree/olc_05102005_bradbury_20pg.pdf) [PDF], dated May 10, 2005
from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

A 40-page memo (http://72.3.233.244/pdfs/safefree/olc_05302005_bradbury.pdf) [PDF], dated May 30, 2005
from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

Drysdale
18th April 2009, 07:46 AM
How do you know that?

From wirereports.

In Iraq a child was in the backseat of a rigged car to get past the checkpoint.

In Israel mothers will walk into stores,restaurants etc with their children and detonate explosives.

If you're that far out of the loop I'm not wasting my time.

Drysdale
18th April 2009, 07:53 AM
Extremists?

LOL, ok.

The bottom line is it works. If it did'nt it would'nt have been done for centuries.
When the other side starts playing by the rules than we can also.

If you have no weapon and high morals but your enemy has no morals and a gun who has the power there?

JoeTheJuggler
18th April 2009, 08:32 AM
Great! That's what SHOULD happen. So far though everyone's just kind of standing around going "rabble rabble rabble."
You're wrong on that. I've written a letter to Obama and it's going out in today's mail. PDA and other organizations are also trying to pressure Obama to re-examine the issue. (In fact, something I heard in the news yesterday makes me think he's leaving the option on the table to have some sort of accounting for these crimes.)

I'm not sure why a forum discussion on this topic irritates you so much. What exactly do you think a discussion of this type is supposed to accomplish?



Who's [sic] definition do you want to follow then?
The legal one. That's the thing about laws: you can't just make up your own version of them--especially if that version contradicts the established law--and operate based on that.

From wirereports.

In Iraq a child was in the backseat of a rigged car to get past the checkpoint.

In Israel mothers will walk into stores,restaurants etc with their children and detonate explosives.

If you're that far out of the loop I'm not wasting my time.

I'm pointing out that when you've got a prisoner suspected of doing something, you don't KNOW you've got the right guy. The guy you have could be completely unrelated to terrorist activity. If you torture him, he will certainly say whatever he thinks you want to hear to make it stop. (You can get people to confess to having had congress with demons and all sorts of nonsense by torturing them!)

So now, you're the bad guy who's torturing an innocent person AND you've got worthless information. (And worse, in many case you'll never know whether the person you've tortured is the right guy or whether the information you get is any good.)

Please read the links I posted earlier. There's the account of Dilawar, for example.

ETA: Oh wait--you're always certain you got the right guy because you got his name from someone else you tortured!

Lonewulf
18th April 2009, 09:21 AM
I'm pointing out that when you've got a prisoner suspected of doing something, you don't KNOW you've got the right guy. The guy you have could be completely unrelated to terrorist activity. If you torture him, he will certainly say whatever he thinks you want to hear to make it stop. (You can get people to confess to having had congress with demons and all sorts of nonsense by torturing them!)Well, torture has been used for thousands of years, so it MUST be reliable!

Every witch that confessed? Guilty! Women that have sex with demons and bear their offspring? OBVIOUSLY guilty. If it didn't work, they wouldn't have used it! D'uh!

We should re-adopt the ways of the Spanish Inquisition. Inquisitions have been used for centuries, so obviously they're a good way of doing things.

JoeTheJuggler
18th April 2009, 09:21 AM
The bottom line is it works. If it did'nt [sic] it would'nt [sic] have been done for centuries.
First of all, the fact that something has been done for centuries does NOT mean "it works" or is right. That's the favorite cant of New Age woo-woos.

Second, it doesn't work. The information you get from torture is not in itself reliable. Also, by practicing torture you guarantee that when our operatives are caught, they will be similarly mistreated.

JoeTheJuggler
18th April 2009, 09:25 AM
Well, torture has been used for thousands of years, so it MUST be reliable!

Every witch that confessed? Guilty! Women that have sex with demons and bear their offspring? OBVIOUSLY guilty. If it didn't work, they wouldn't have used it! D'uh!
:D
I was thinking along similar lines.

The Inquisition worked very well didn't it? The Church never had any problems with heresies or schisms or Protestants or any of that. Why you hardly hear anything from the Muslims these days at all! Yup--it worked all right.

WildCat
18th April 2009, 09:25 AM
find it interesting that other countries were cracked down on for torturing our POWs, but we seem to feel that its justified when we do it ourselves. What does that tell you about us?
Those other countries actually tortured prisoners. None of this "he threw a cockroach into my cell and gave me the vapors" definition of torture.

WildCat
18th April 2009, 09:28 AM
Ah, I see Lonewulf has already addressed this, deleted.

Drysdale
18th April 2009, 09:33 AM
Well, torture has been used for thousands of years, so it MUST be reliable!

Every witch that confessed? Guilty! Women that have sex with demons and bear their offspring? OBVIOUSLY guilty. If it didn't work, they wouldn't have used it! D'uh!

We should re-adopt the ways of the Spanish Inquisition. Inquisitions have been used for centuries, so obviously they're a good way of doing things.

Yea, piling rocks on top of someone and stretching them on the rack is really comparable to waterboarding and playing loud music and bugs etc.

Geez,

Lonewulf
18th April 2009, 09:39 AM
Yea, piling rocks on top of someone and stretching them on the rack is really comparable to waterboarding and playing loud music and bugs etc.

Geez,

Ah, so you AREN'T making the "they've done it for centuries!!!11111" argument, then.

Nice to know.

Or are you saying that piling rocks on top of someone is bad even though it's been done for a long time? If it wasn't useful, they wouldn't do it, right? Right? That's your own logic working against you there.

(It's hilarious how fast goal posts are changed. It's like people like this assume that they can get away with laying down moronic arguments, and they never ever have to actually retract anything they said. Eisenhower starved 1 million prisoners! If it's done for centuries, it must be valid!)

Lonewulf
18th April 2009, 09:40 AM
Those other countries actually tortured prisoners. None of this "he threw a cockroach into my cell and gave me the vapors" definition of torture.

Because waterboarding is "throwing a cockroach into your cell", and wasn't used as an offense against Japanese interrogators. Glad to see you're still denying reality.

Drysdale
18th April 2009, 09:50 AM
Eh, the thousand yr bit was kinda lame maybe.

It comes down to this. If what was done was indeed torture why are'nt there any charges?
And if there's no charges why release this? To show we are terrible like Obama seems to preach in every speech pretty much? What exactly was gained by releasing this?

Lonewulf
18th April 2009, 09:52 AM
Eh, the thousand yr bit was kinda lame maybe.I'm glad you're able to admit that. If only other posters, like, Texas, were capable of such a thing. I respect you for this bit, I assure you.

It comes down to this. If what was done was indeed torture why are'nt there any charges?But there were charges, against Japanese interrogators, for similar actions that the U.S. government made.

If what was done wasn't torture, why would we charge Japanese interrogators for the exact same thing?

Also, "No one was punished" != "Nothing wrong was done". Or are you stating that every fugitive not caught didn't do anything wrong, because they haven't been officially arrested yet?

There are sometimes other motives for not arresting someone than "nothing wrong was done". For instance, have you ever heard of a plea bargain? A drug dealer didn't "do nothing wrong" just because he's let go because he turned in a "bigger fish". And sometimes someone does something wrong, but to bust them for it would cause a lot of negative consequences, that it's simply less of a headache to just let them go and not worry about them.

JoeTheJuggler
18th April 2009, 09:56 AM
It comes down to this. If what was done was indeed torture why are'nt there any charges?
That's just begging the question. In fact, many of us are saying exactly that: "Why isn't anyone being investigated and charged for these crimes?"

So before Madoff was caught for his Ponzi scheme, there was a time when no one had been charged for it. Does that mean that at that time there was no crime?

Lonewulf
18th April 2009, 09:58 AM
Oh, and I find it amusing what people mention when they talk about torture. In the book 1984 by George Orwell, almost everyone here would seem to agree that threatening to have rats eat someone's face out would be perfectly fine, as it's just an "Oh my, I have the vapors!" kind of torture. So in short, the interrogators (well, more like the brainwashers) in 1984 were doing just fine in their actions.

It's amusing, for multiple reasons I don't think I really need to explain to the reader with common sense. ;)

Drysdale
18th April 2009, 09:59 AM
Lets move on from what is and isnt torture and get back to the OP.

Why release it?

What exactly was accomplished by that?

If they are going to press charges because they believe it was wrong I can understand the need to release it. But if not what was the point except for political points?

As I said in my original post this was just stupid.

Lonewulf
18th April 2009, 10:02 AM
I'm curious as to your own opinions on this matter.

Was it a conspiracy by the democratic party, then?

WildCat
18th April 2009, 10:09 AM
Because waterboarding is "throwing a cockroach into your cell", and wasn't used as an offense against Japanese interrogators. Glad to see you're still denying reality.
The Japanese guy "convicted for waterboarding" was also convicted of burning prisoners with cigarettes, beating them with a club, his fists, and hands, kicking the crap out of them, strapping them to a stretcher head down, and stealing their Red Cross aid packets.

I'd wager he also did this to more than 3 people.

Lonewulf
18th April 2009, 10:13 AM
The Japanese guy "convicted for waterboarding" was also convicted of burning prisoners with cigarettes, beating them with a club, his fists, and hands, kicking the crap out of them, strapping them to a stretcher head down, and stealing their Red Cross aid packets.

I'd wager he also did this to more than 3 people.

This claim of yours has already been debunked by JoeTheJuggler, which I don't believe you responded to.

Waterboarding *was* targeted as an individual form of torture, and wasn't just "an afterthoughtlol".

So it's the number of people tortured that really matters? So torturing one or two prisoners, okay, but torturing 5, OMG YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR?

How many people can we torture before it becomes immoral? Where's the borderline, please? Since you're obviously the man to say how many we should or should not torture before it becomes immoral...

WildCat
18th April 2009, 10:22 AM
This claim of yours has already been debunked by JoeTheJuggler, which I don't believe you responded to.
I went out last night, I'm working backwards here.

Joe mentioned Yukio Asano as his example of a Japanese sentenced to 15 years labor for waterboarding. It wasn't just that:
Defendant: Asano, Yukio

Docket Date: 53/ May 1 - 28, 1947, Yokohama, Japan

Charge: Violation of the Laws and Customs of War: 1. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture PWs. 2. Did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for PWs.

Specifications:beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~warcrime/Japan/Yokohama/Reviews/Yokohama_Review_Asano.htm

Lonewulf
18th April 2009, 10:23 AM
"water torture". Hum.

I guess this is proof that they didn't really consider it torture?

I guess it was Opposite Day? Is that your excuse?


Also, this very argument is another one that shows just how deep into fantasyland you guys all are.

"My buddy bob just killed 5 people and stole $500! Because he was really convicted of murder above and beyond theft, this means that theft is no longer considered a crime! So Government officials should be able to embezzle millions of dollars, no problem."

Look, Wildcat, arguing with you is fun because it's fun to point out your silly arguments and all, but seriously; this is going to go nowhere.

Drysdale, Texas, and Wildcat are all so deeply based in their ideology, and so deeply based in their belief that the U.S. government cannot, and will not possibly ever do anything wrong in any way, shape, or form, that they will and will always defend every single action as being necessary and good, no matter the outcome, no matter the evidence, and no matter the logic. (To be fair, it's obvious that Texas "Ike starved a million people!" and Drysdale "Won't you just trust the government's secret trials?!!!" are worse than Wildcat is, but they fall into the same category from my perspective)

It's obvious that this conversation is just one giant co-joined ***************. And you know what? I'm not really in the mood for a good **** right now. Or a bad one, as this is.

DC
18th April 2009, 10:27 AM
Specifications:beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward

we have learned using only the techniques that let behind no visible traces. Just the smashing to the wall is still some 20th century, but the rest is pretty much 21th century torture techniques. "humane torture"

we are far more civilized.....

Drysdale
18th April 2009, 10:30 AM
I'm curious as to your own opinions on this matter.

Was it a conspiracy by the democratic party, then?

Conspiracy for? I dont know what you're implying here.

Basically I think this is throwing a bone to all the left wing nuts calling for Bush,Rove,Cheney to be convicted of war crimes etc.

Lonewulf
18th April 2009, 10:35 AM
Conspiracy for? I dont know what you're implying here.

Basically I think this is throwing a bone to all the left wing nuts calling for Bush,Rove,Cheney to be convicted of war crimes etc.

Yeah, seems like it.

If one commits war crimes, or aids and abets a war crime, should they or should they not be punished? This is a serious question here; don't worry about if it's Bush, Rove, Cheney or whatever. If something is regarded internationally as a war crime, and even would break the national laws against such an action, should they be convicted if this action? Why or why not, and under what conditions do you allow exceptions?

"Wing nuts", by your definition, seems to be "Guys that kinda like this justice thing we've been hearing about".

WildCat
18th April 2009, 10:37 AM
"water torture". Hum.

I guess this is proof that they didn't really consider it torture?

I guess it was Opposite Day? Is that your excuse?
There is no indication as to what form this "water torture" took. A popular method used by the Japanese was to force their victims to drink large quantities of water, I don't know if the Japanese ever used waterboarding as we know it.

It appears to me someone saw "water torture" and assumed it meant waterboarding and ran with that.

In this form of water torture, water is forced down the throat and into the stomach. This happens repeatedly until osmosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmosis) causes the cells to explode[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. It was used as a legal torture and execution method by the courts in France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) in the 17th and 18th century, was employed against Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) and Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China) during World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) by the Japanese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_torture

Lonewulf
18th April 2009, 10:44 AM
I like the citation needed right in the center of your quoted paragraph. :D Still, that seems to pertain more to the "osmosis causing the cells to explode" thing.

Hm, perhaps you're right though. I might need to rethink this. *Waits for JoeTheJuggler to respond*.

leftysergeant
18th April 2009, 10:49 AM
Releasing this has a whole lot more bearing on national security than 3 freaking pirates.

When the terrorists stop with the kill any and all infidels attacks, including women and children then we'll stop waterboarding and the other stuff. That seems pretty fair to me.

This is just stupid.

You were referring to the practice of water boarding as stupid, rather than the discussion of whether or not to prosecute sick little criminals like Yoo and Gonzo, right?

I do hope that's what you meant, if you are a member of this community.

WildCat
18th April 2009, 10:55 AM
I like the citation needed right in the center of your quoted paragraph. :D Still, that seems to pertain more to the "osmosis causing the cells to explode" thing.

Hm, perhaps you're right though. I might need to rethink this. *Waits for JoeTheJuggler to respond*.
It's hard to find specific information on this. But so far every instance I find of Japanese water torture in WWII involves forcing water into the victim's stomach using a hose. The victim's stomach was often stomped on afterwards, causing death in many instances.

DC
18th April 2009, 11:05 AM
...the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed...


http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

Reservations:

"I. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following reservations:

(1) That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article 16 to prevent `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment', only insofar as the term `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

(2) That pursuant to article 30 (2) the United States declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 30 (1), but reserves the right specifically to agree to follow this or any other procedure for arbitration in a particular case.

II. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following understandings, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention:

(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

(b) That the United States understands that the definition of torture in article 1 is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender's custody or physical control.

(c) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that `sanctions' includes judicially-imposed sanctions and other enforcement actions authorized by United States law or by judicial interpretation of such law. Nonetheless, the United States understands that a State Party could not through its domestic sanctions defeat the object and purpose of the Convention to prohibit torture.

(d) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that the term `acquiescence' requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.

(e) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the Unites States understands that noncompliance with applicable legal procedural standards does not per se constitute torture.

(2) That the United States understands the phrase, `where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture,' as used in article 3 of the Convention, to mean `if it is more likely than not that he would be tortured.'

(3) That it is the understanding of the United States that article 14 requires a State Party to provide a private right of action for damages only for acts of torture committed in territory under the jurisdiction of that State Party.

(4) That the United States understands that international law does not prohibit the death penalty, and does not consider this Convention to restrict or prohibit the United States from applying the death penalty consistent with the Fifth, Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, including any constitutional period of confinement prior to the imposition of the death penalty.

(5) That the United States understands that this Convention shall be implemented by the United States Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered by the Convention and otherwise by the state and local governments. Accordingly, in implementing articles 10-14 and 16, the United States Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the constituent units of the United States of America may take appropriate measures for the fulfilment of the Convention.

III. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following declarations:

(1) That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 16 of the Convention are not self-executing.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/cat/treaties/convention-reserv.htm

waterboarding is torture.

leftysergeant
18th April 2009, 11:05 AM
War is not a sporting event. You can play a baseball game and lose and go home and play the next day. In war you win or you lose and the penalty for losing is death. As someone pointed out, you live in a fantasy Utopia. That is not an option for those charged with winning a war. War is all or nothing.

But only a moron thinks that torture helps win a war. By the time you get any actionable intel out of a prisoner, it has passed its shelf life.

If torutre provides useful information, the Nazis would have known from captured French resisteance fighters not to have Rommel twiddling his thumbs on the Pas de Calais waiting for the real invasion.

Rummy, Yoo, Rove and Gonzo are war criminals and useless to civilization. Send them all to any nation that wants to bring charges.

Kestrel
18th April 2009, 11:16 AM
There is no indication as to what form this "water torture" took. A popular method used by the Japanese was to force their victims to drink large quantities of water, I don't know if the Japanese ever used waterboarding as we know it.

It appears to me someone saw "water torture" and assumed it meant waterboarding and ran with that.


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

Captain Nielsen, a U.S. aviator captured by the Japanese in China following the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo described how he was tortured:

Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I’d get my breath, then they’d start over again.

It certainly sounds like the same technique used by CIA agents.

Lonewulf
18th April 2009, 11:19 AM
Captain Nielsen, a U.S. aviator captured by the Japanese in China following the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo described how he was tortured:



It certainly sounds like the same technique used by CIA agents.

I'm sure Captain Nielsen and the U.S. Government all said, "Yeah, but it wasn't really torture. It was just him/me having the vapors. It's just like throwing a cockroach into someone's cell!"

Drysdale
18th April 2009, 11:25 AM
You were referring to the practice of water boarding as stupid, rather than the discussion of whether or not to prosecute sick little criminals like Yoo and Gonzo, right?

I do hope that's what you meant, if you are a member of this community.

No, I was referring to the release of the documents with no apparent purpose.

If Obama believes what they did was illegal he should prosecute them.

If not what is the point of releasing them?

I see no logic behind it other than to gain political points.

Lonewulf
18th April 2009, 11:30 AM
I'm certainly glad that this government isn't run solely based on what you see as "logical" or not, Drysdale.

leftysergeant
18th April 2009, 11:36 AM
I see no logic behind it other than to gain political points.

What's wrong with that? He still has to worry about the 2010 elections and an attempt by the GOP to take back some seats in the Congress. To point out that the GOP s the party of self-rightous thugs and barbarians who are incapable of conducting a war in a rational manner will help prevent the GOP's getting back some power and further screwing up the world.

A hell of a lot more valid political move than was Rover's revealing the Valerie Plame was a spy. don't you agree?

If your opposition endorses and promotes crime, the public deserves to know about it so that criminals and their enablers are not allowed any say in governance.

Rummy, Yoo, Gonzo and Rover, being low lifes of the worst sort, are slander-proof. Slapping them around for political points is hardly a crime. Letting the world know that real americans detest such critters should also go a long way toward rebuilding our image abroad.

Peephole
18th April 2009, 11:37 AM
No, I was referring to the release of the documents with no apparent purpose.

If Obama believes what they did was illegal he should prosecute them.

If not what is the point of releasing them?

I see no logic behind it other than to gain political points.
You should look up the word "transparency" in the dictionary.

DC
18th April 2009, 11:49 AM
You should look up the word "transparency" in the dictionary.

he doesnt need that , he trust the president and his service men

Cobalt
18th April 2009, 02:16 PM
You're wrong on that. I've written a letter to Obama and it's going out in today's mail. PDA and other organizations are also trying to pressure Obama to re-examine the issue. (In fact, something I heard in the news yesterday makes me think he's leaving the option on the table to have some sort of accounting for these crimes.) So you wrote down "rabble rabble rabble" instead of actually saying it.


I'm not sure why a forum discussion on this topic irritates you so much. What exactly do you think a discussion of this type is supposed to accomplish? Actually it amuses me. And I suppose accomplish is the wrong word to use. But if we're suppose to be having a discussion it would help if there was actually something to discuss. So far it's just "Here's what's wrong, throw someone in jail!"

You defined the crime. Kudos. But until the investigation you wish to happen occurs, there isn't much left to discuss.



The legal one. That's the thing about laws: you can't just make up your own version of them--especially if that version contradicts the established law--and operate based on that.
Yeah laws never get changed or skirted. Oh, and I'm so sorry my grammatical error caused you such torment. Forgive me, master.

JoeTheJuggler
18th April 2009, 02:45 PM
So you wrote down "rabble rabble rabble" instead of actually saying it.
No. I'm an active participant in the political processes of my country.

By the way, is there any forum thread that you would say does NOT consist of people saying "rabble rabble rabble"?


Actually it amuses me.
Nope--you're very upset about something, that's obvious. Several times now you decried this thread because it's nothing but saying "rabble rabble rabble". Yet you can't say what you think a thread that actually accomplishes something would be.

And I suppose accomplish is the wrong word to use.
Oh good. So what's your problem then?

But if we're suppose to be having a discussion it would help if there was actually something to discuss.
This makes no sense at all. There's some pretty sharp disagreements in this thread, so it's obvious there is something to discuss. Wildcat, for example, keeps insisting that there's no definition of "torture". I've cited the pertinent law to point out that it is in fact very well defined.

So far it's just "Here's what's wrong, throw someone in jail!"
It's just that as long as you ignore everything else that's been said in this thread. Wasn't it you who claimed we weren't even citing a crime? (Even though it's right there in the OP--the crime of torture.) Then you asked who I would charge. So far I've had more than adequate answers--actual content and nothing like "rabble rabble".

So why are you so dissatisfied with this discussion?

leftysergeant
18th April 2009, 02:49 PM
You defined the crime. Kudos. But until the investigation you wish to happen occurs, there isn't much left to discuss.

Not much to investigate. Rummy, Gonzo and Yoo admitted that they approved the crimes.


Yeah laws never get changed or skirted. Oh, and I'm so sorry my grammatical error caused you such torment. Forgive me, master.

Changed takes legislation, not just the okay of some dirtbag in a back office. Gonzo VIOLATED the laws. Throw the lot of them in jail and forget to feed them.

Cobalt
18th April 2009, 02:58 PM
No. I'm an active participant in the political processes of my country. Me too. I voted! YAY ME!


By the way, is there any forum thread that you would say does NOT consist of people saying "rabble rabble rabble"? Ones where actual solutions are presented, or alternatives? There's plenty of those. They're actually discussions.



Nope--you're very upset about something, that's obvious. Several times now you decried this thread because it's nothing but saying "rabble rabble rabble". Yet you can't say what you think a thread that actually accomplishes something would be. Mind reading, eh? Cute.
In my personal opinion, this thread is pretty much done once you say an investigation needs to happen. S'all. Not like my opinion means jack **** to you, and it shouldn't.


Oh good. So what's your problem then? Currently my capture card isn't working right. Oh, that's not what you mean.


This makes no sense at all. There's some pretty sharp disagreements in this thread, so it's obvious there is something to discuss. Wildcat, for example, keeps insisting that there's no definition of "torture". I've cited the pertinent law to point out that it is in fact very well defined. That has approximately dick to do with me.


It's just that as long as you ignore everything else that's been said in this thread. Wasn't it you who claimed we weren't even citing a crime? (Even though it's right there in the OP--the crime of torture.) Then you asked who I would charge. So far I've had more than adequate answers--actual content and nothing like "rabble rabble". I claimed that, and then promptly said you defined it in the very post you're replying to. So, yes, I was incorrect! But don't let that stop you, kiddo.

So why are you so dissatisfied with this discussion?
I personally don't see where this discussion can go except for saying "You don't want someone to go to jail? Torture supporter!"

The simple reality for me is, I don't exactly give a ****.

Cobalt
18th April 2009, 03:01 PM
Throw the lot of them in jail and forget to feed them.

The irony of that statement in a thread regarding torture is so absurdly delicious, I might actually laugh out loud.

Drysdale
18th April 2009, 03:05 PM
You should look up the word "transparency" in the dictionary.


Oh I know what transparency means.

It's the selective transparency I have a problem with.

JoeTheJuggler
18th April 2009, 03:40 PM
I personally don't see where this discussion can go except for saying "You don't want someone to go to jail? Torture supporter!"
There are a range of positions in the discussion thus far. Wildcat, I think, made a valid point that giving a legal opinion isn't the same as committing or ordering the crime of torture. Drysdale holds the position that torture is often justified.

Your summary of the thread is unfair and grossly inaccurate.

The simple reality for me is, I don't exactly give a ****.
Then I suggest you calm down and maybe just leave this thread alone.

JoeTheJuggler
18th April 2009, 03:43 PM
Ones where actual solutions are presented, or alternatives? There's plenty of those. They're actually discussions.

I think the U.N. Convention Against Torture is in fact a solution to the problem of torture.

I think it's very important that when these sorts of crimes come to light, the criminals who committed them should be held accountable. This is how the rule of law works. Otherwise, you've just got the way things worked for much of history: might makes right. Only the losers in a conflict are held accountable for their crimes.

I think actually adhering to an internationally-accepted standard is a much better solution.

WildCat
18th April 2009, 03:45 PM
The irony of that statement in a thread regarding torture is so absurdly delicious, I might actually laugh out loud.
lefty's not against torture of those he doesn't like.

WildCat
18th April 2009, 03:52 PM
Captain Nielsen, a U.S. aviator captured by the Japanese in China following the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo described how he was tortured:



It certainly sounds like the same technique used by CIA agents.
The CIA didn't do that nearly as long. I think KSM's waterboarding session lasted all of 20 seconds.

At any rate, that particular method was called the "water cure" back then. "Water torture" referred to using a hose to force water into the victim's stomach, often until it ruptured. They also liked to stomp on the victim's stomach while it was full of water.

Cobalt
18th April 2009, 04:32 PM
There are a range of positions in the discussion thus far. Wildcat, I think, made a valid point that giving a legal opinion isn't the same as committing or ordering the crime of torture. Drysdale holds the position that torture is often justified. And in fact I agree with both of them.


Your summary of the thread is unfair and grossly inaccurate.
My bad then.


Then I suggest you calm down and maybe just leave this thread alone.
I'm perfectly calm. Why do some people assume they know the feelings of others through the series of tubes?


I think the U.N. Convention Against Torture is in fact a solution to the problem of torture.

I think it's very important that when these sorts of crimes come to light, the criminals who committed them should be held accountable. This is how the rule of law works. Otherwise, you've just got the way things worked for much of history: might makes right. Only the losers in a conflict are held accountable for their crimes.

I think actually adhering to an internationally-accepted standard is a much better solution. Fair enough.



lefty's not against torture of those he doesn't like.

Yeah but the irony just HAD to be pointed out.

Dan O.
18th April 2009, 06:04 PM
My answer is NO.

No person should be prosecuted in the US for torture conducted outside the US on non-US citizens. Any prosecution in the US will simply be perceived internationally as a faux show trial.

Trials of war crimes should be held in international courts where the world can uncover the real truths and subject the criminals to proper punishment without the protectionist umbrella of the mother country.

Drysdale
18th April 2009, 06:35 PM
There are a range of positions in the discussion thus far. Wildcat, I think, made a valid point that giving a legal opinion isn't the same as committing or ordering the crime of torture. Drysdale holds the position that torture is often justified.



I dont know about often justified. I dont recall saying that.
However,against this particular enemy being the Jihadists I dont have a problem with it no.

At least not the supposed torture as described in the memos.

Rockpiling,the rack,extreme violence, etc no.
That's not what we are talking about though.

leftysergeant
18th April 2009, 07:14 PM
I dont know about often justified. I dont recall saying that.
However,against this particular enemy being the Jihadists I dont have a problem with it no.

It is no more useful in this case than in any other, so why throw your humanity out the window? What part of "doesn't work" do you not comprehend? What part of "illegal" do you not comprehend?

At least not the supposed torture as described in the memos.

The BS that trhe dirtbags higher up authorized is still illegal and useless.

Rockpiling,the rack,extreme violence, etc no.
That's not what we are talking about though.

We're still talking about humiliation, inflicting pain and generally violating every law that civilized human beings are supposed to follow.

Kestrel
18th April 2009, 07:31 PM
I dont know about often justified. I dont recall saying that.
However,against this particular enemy being the Jihadists I dont have a problem with it no.

At least not the supposed torture as described in the memos.

Rockpiling,the rack,extreme violence, etc no.
That's not what we are talking about though.

The nature of the accusation along justifies the techniques?

In the Middle Ages, the church felt that witchcraft was a grave threat to society. They paid rewards to villagers who turned in a suspected witch. They used torture until the suspect confessed and provided details of the evil spells she had cast. At time the suspect dies during this process. Anyone questioning the system was considered a heretic and a supporter of witchcraft.

Recent history is a bit different. The government felt that jihads were a grave threat to society. They paid rewards to villagers that turned in a suspected jihadist. They used enhanced interrogation techniques until the suspect confessed and provided details of planned terrorist plots. At times the suspect died during this process. Anyone questioning the system was considered unpatriotic and a supporter of jihads.

Drysdale
19th April 2009, 07:24 AM
It is no more useful in this case than in any other, so why throw your humanity out the window? What part of "doesn't work" do you not comprehend? What part of "illegal" do you not comprehend?



The BS that trhe dirtbags higher up authorized is still illegal and useless.



We're still talking about humiliation, inflicting pain and generally violating every law that civilized human beings are supposed to follow.

So, you're view is it does'nt work? Where did you find this information?


And if it's illegal then why have'nt they filed charges? Pretty simple here.

Drysdale
19th April 2009, 07:26 AM
The nature of the accusation along justifies the techniques?

In the Middle Ages, the church felt that witchcraft was a grave threat to society. They paid rewards to villagers who turned in a suspected witch. They used torture until the suspect confessed and provided details of the evil spells she had cast. At time the suspect dies during this process. Anyone questioning the system was considered a heretic and a supporter of witchcraft.

Recent history is a bit different. The government felt that jihads were a grave threat to society. They paid rewards to villagers that turned in a suspected jihadist. They used enhanced interrogation techniques until the suspect confessed and provided details of planned terrorist plots. At times the suspect died during this process. Anyone questioning the system was considered unpatriotic and a supporter of jihads.

Where is this source that says the suspects died by American interrogation?

leftysergeant
19th April 2009, 07:31 AM
So, you're view is it does'nt work? Where did you find this information?

It gives unreliable results. You appear to have at least looked at what Kestrel posted. Try reading it again with your brain engaged.

And if it's illegal then why have'nt they filed charges? Pretty simple here.

You don't know a thing about military intel, it would appear. You have to close a lot of doors before prosecuting that sort of thing because the backlash can get innocent people killed.

applecorped
19th April 2009, 07:46 AM
You have to close a lot of doors before prosecuting that sort of thing because the backlash can get innocent people killed.


or tortured :rolleyes:

Kestrel
19th April 2009, 07:51 AM
Where is this source that says the suspects died by American interrogation?

You can start with this New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html).

Drysdale
19th April 2009, 08:03 AM
It gives unreliable results. You appear to have at least looked at what Kestrel posted. Try reading it again with your brain engaged.



You don't know a thing about military intel, it would appear. You have to close a lot of doors before prosecuting that sort of thing because the backlash can get innocent people killed.


Which is exactly my point.

Why was it released if they are

a)Not going to press charges

or

b)Awaiting to press charges

Drysdale
19th April 2009, 08:30 AM
You can start with this New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html).

I'll look more into this. It seems a bit onesided though. It paints the detainees as angels pretty much and the servicemen as vicious thugs a little too much to appear unbiased to me.

Was there hearings on this and if so where's the transcript if public or results?

If this is accurate and was passed down as standard treatment from high up I'd say there is a problem though.