US admits tortureFollow

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050624/pl_afp/unustortureguantanamo_050624132300

The administration wants it both ways: first, they want you to believe that anyone who questions the behavior of US troops in regards to prisoner abuse is an anti-american traitor who is demoralizing US troops. Incredibly, they would, at the same time, pin the blame for systematic abuse on the grunts instead of the chain of command where it belongs.

The doublethink is getting pretty heavy here.

Well, it's a start, but I agree that it's ludicrous to suggest that in all cases (however random), the higher-ups didn't know.

If those in command didn't know, that is their fault. It is their job to know what goes on.

why did i have to be born here?

Godwins, game over for SPCA

The sad thing is that Gbaji is going to say the same thing but with 30,000 more words and a dozen logical fallacies thrown in.

I'm in the army what do you expect?? Grammer and spelling aren't our fine points, that's why they gave us spell check.

Actually yes it is. It states so in the geneva convention. We even use torture tactics on US citizens....sleep deprivation..isolation..are forms of torture and are legal.

My kitten is torturing me!

No. I never said that. I said on several occasions that I have no way of knowing if anyone was tortured there. All I *ever* said was that we should wait until there is proof of torture or abuse before even beginning to figure out what to do about it. My primary complaint was all the people arguing that we close Guantanamo when they themselves have absolutely no way of knowing what violations may or may not have occured, the severity of those violations, the actions taken to prevent them from re-occuring, and ultimately whether or not closing the base is justified and whether it will help or hurt matters at hand.

Never once did I say that no toture was occuring. Only that there was as of yet no publically available and verifiable evidence that torture was occuring.


I'd also like to point out that this source still does not tell us what exactly occured and whether the actions/abuses/whatever that happened meet the definition of "torture" or "abuse". The article writer feels comfortable saying that the US is admitting to torture, but once again, when you read the actual article, that's not what's said at all (at least not in quotes). The problem I've had all along is that many people have varying defintions of torture, that don't necessarily match the legal definition of torture. So if a prisoner is beaten by a guard, that's going to be reported as "toture". If he's beaten as part of an official interrogation, then it's torture. If he's beaten because the guard is bored, or just doesn't like the guy, then it's abuse.

I'm still advising that we wait and see what the report actually says, and how the various actions in that report end up being legally defined before we start spouting off about torture at guantanamo. If, as was stated in the article, this was a series of isolated events and occured without authorization, then we're not actually talking about torture (I'll requote the UNs definition of torture for you if you'd like).


As to Shadow:



No. Just no. How many times do I have to tell you that this statement is wrong? Sheesh!

Again though, you highlight why this issue gets blown out of proportion. You feel that any interrogation amounts to torture since it's all a violation of the GC. Many people don't see a distinction between torture and interrogation. In our popular use of the term torture, any questioning that involves any level of discomfort or lack of legal counsel present is often termed "torture". But the definition that's going to be used at the UN is based on the Convention on Torture, which has a very specific defintion that does not include a whole range of things that the average person would call torture if he saw it.

Um. No. The US filed a report with the UN and detailed exactly what has been going on there. Some details of that report were leaked to the press from a source. The reporter that this information was leaked to called it "torture". Until there is an official finding of fact from the UN based on the UN Convention of Torture, that calls some act or acts at Gitmo "torture" (using the legal definition), we can't say what has happened.



Really? You're ready and willing to say that when not one single fact has been presented to you. So far, we have only the labeling of the acts in the report by the media as "torture" to go on. Don't you think we should maybe wait until someone with actual knowledge of exactly what happened and a working knowledge of the legal definition of torture decides if this is tortore or not? I'd hope so.



Sigh. How many times do I have to do this. Read article 5 of the 4th Geneva Convention. These detainees are being held *exactly* in accordance with the law as spelled out in that Convention. Just because you are ignorant of anything in the Geneva Conventions besides POW status does not make your argument valid.




You are correct. But there is legal justification for interrogation. It's allowed, especially for prisoners held under article 5 of the 4th Convention. The problem is that most people don't really know what the legal definition of torture is. Because of that most people will asume that many interrogation techniques that *are* legal and are *not* torture actually are torture. After all, putting somoene on a modern equivalent of the rack, holding their limbs in uncormfortable positions, while shining a bright light on them, denying them sleep and food, and allowing them to defecate and urinate on themselves certainly *sounds* like torture, right? Believe it or not, as long as those exact things are done for carefully controlled amounts of time so as to ensure no serious physical or mental harm occurs to the interrogatee (and perferably none at all except discomfort), it's not torture, and in fact may be a successful interrogation techique that might be needed to get information from some operatives.

Ok. I made up that example. I don't actually know at what legal point any or all of those things *might* become illegal, or what of those things may or hmauy not have been done at Gitmo. But that's the point. You don't know either. Most people don't know. But most people's initial reaction to *any* form of interrogation beyond the incredibly protected questioning that we get by police here in the states will be to assume that it's torture and will label it so. Which is exactly why it can be very misleading to take someone's interpretation of a leaked report at face value. We simply have no facts by which to judge. And odds are the person who *wrote* what few "facts" we are given doesn't know either. He's just calling it torture becuase, just like everyone else, he assumes it is because it's not something that would be allowed in a local jail.




Certainly. But it's also not about desperately trying to find fault in what we're doing based on whatever interpretation of the rules and facts we can get our hands on, while ignoring that those we are fitghting again *are* violating the Geneva Conventions. Obviously, we need to follow the rules. We need to be "better" then the other guy. But don't forget that the other guy is blatantly and openily violating every intent and ideal of the Geneva Conventions, and every rule of international laws as well. He is willing to target civilians to achieve his goal. He's willing to disguise himself among a civilian population in order to use them as shields against counter attack. He acts as a military force, but follows no chain of command and takes no responsiblity for any actions taken. While doing so he uses civilian protections to avoid extradition and attack. He uses rule of law, takes advantage of it and then violates it at his whim, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions rules on the behavior of civilians (hence where we get article 5 btw).

We'd have to go a hell of a lot farther to even get close to being "just as bad as they are".

Edited, Sat Jun 25 06:48:37 2005 by gbaji

Ah. I see. So arguing that we should reserve judgement until we actually know the facts of the situation means I'm an "unrelenting loathsome pig". Ad hominum much?

Funny. You sit there, up on your ethical high horse, proclaiming how important rule of law is, but when it suits your purpose, you insist on condemning an action without even knowing what laws were broken, what actions exactly were done that might involve breaking of a law, and who it is that actually may have done it.

I'm serious here. You really are a torch and a pitchfork shy of a mob, but you seem to think you're all about supporing rules, laws, regulations and all that other stuff. For all your talk about being "better then the other guy", you are the one insisting that we toss out the law and legal rules whenever it's your side that might benefit. How about for one second you actually apply your own rules to yourself?

Sheesh! Am I the only person sane enough here to realize that you can't persue an cause of legality while you yourself are ignoring the actual laws? I'd like to think that we should pursue an investigation into what went on at Guantanamo in order to find out the truth and discover what laws may have been broken. But from what I've seen on this forum, it seems like most of you just want a witchhunt. You grasp at the barest of hints of violations and cry out for blood. That's not how a law absiding society does things. Not by a long shot...

If only there were a simple guide that could help everyone understand these rants.