Gitmo updateFollow

What about water-boarding, which takes advantage of a natural, autonomous defense mechanism to break the prisoner.

Yeah. Waterboarding is in the same catagory. However, it's gained particular attention and has specifically been "banned" (I put that in quotes because while most nations have condemned its use, the actual UN committe on torture has not officially banned its use, likely due to the fact that many of the committee members are the largest abusers of the technique).

The issue is a matter of degrees. Waterboarding, when done "properly" poses no actual risk to the person being interrogated, but makes them think they are in grave danger. It's one of those "right on the edge" techniques, and I would suspect is largely bashed because the device used "looks" like a torture device...

Other techniques (like say telling someone that red-colored water is menstrual blood, or playing loud music and/or sleep deprivation techniques) are a considerable step down the "harsh interrogation techniques" ladder from waterboarding. My point is that there must be a set of techniques that can be used that are deemed "legal", otherwise the entire issue is moot. If no interrogation technique would meet someone's criteria as "acceptable", then it's not the techniques that you're really offended by but the mere fact that someone is being interrogated at all.

And that's a totally different argument. If you're simply blanketly opposed to all methods of interrogation, then state it plainly so we all know where you're coming from. Going one by one and pointing out each technique and arguing that it's "illegal" or "abuse" or "torture" in that case is disengenous. It's meaningless to specifically single out individual techniques if *no* techniques would meet with approval. And I suspect that most of those who constantly dig up these lists of "abuses" are doing just that. They don't like interrogation period, but instead of just stating that, they'll point at specific individual things and argue that "this one is inhumane".


For those that do this, I'll present a simple challenge. Define exactly what sort of interrogation techniques you believe would be both acceptable (ie: they don't constitute either abuse or torture), *and* would be effective means of obtaining information from hostile detainees. If you can't do that, then there's very little legitimacy to your pointing out any single specific method as an example of wrongdoing.

I would like to think that good members of the military would know better, but I've been wrong before.

nice prefix buddy

so waht are you wearing?

oddball

anybody remember the canadian that was held in custody for over 5 years without any evidence or cause?

seriously... the government can make people dissapear if they want. get pissed, deal with it, hope it doesnt happen to you. unless you plan to overthrow the government there is no major change that you impliment

Edited, Jan 7th 2007 5:43pm by Lordofdogs

No, you have prisoners being gang raped and it's condoned by the governemnt employees who are supposed to be guards. If one instance of injustice disturbs you, why doesn't the other? Or are you just a whiny, hypocritical, muzzy loving cunt, bhodi?

Edited, Jan 8th 2007 9:27am by Abadd

No, why don't you tell me? I'd like some hard numbers, please.

Um...?

/em looks at title of thread
/em looks at multiple references to "gitmo" in the posts in question...

You're kidding, right? Do I really have to put the name "gitmo" in every single line of every post? What part of my posts made you think I was talking about anything *other* then gitmo?

/boggle



Where did I say "threaten to kill him if he doesn't talk"? I choose my words for a very specific reason. Please don't change them into something else just to make your own argument easier.


Ok, and shadow?



The "point" I'm making is that they're being "interrogated", not "tortured". Kinda invalidates your entire statement, doesn't it. Interrogation is known to be a method of gaining information. Even reliable information if you do it right. You're literally arguing the wrong issue here. But that's not exactly surprising...

Methinks you don't know what a straw man argument is...


Look. It seems to me that if someone is insisting that "such and such" interrogation technnique is illegal/torture/whatever and should not be used, that asking them what sorts of interrogation techniques they *would* approve of for use in this situation is a reasonable question.


It's kinda like if someone sits there and insists that eating milk fed veal is an evil thing to do because it's abuse of the animal involved, I'm going to find that position much more compelling if the person stating it can define what sort of meats are "ok" to eat based on the treatment of the animals involved. If it turns out that the person is a hard core vegan and considers any eating of any meat inhumane, then I kinda can't put the "don't eat the veal" statement in any rational context, can I? He's *also* going to tell me not to eat the *any* meat, no matter how it came to be on my plate making the specific admonision with regards to veal somewhat irrelevant.

Can you see how that makes a difference? If no interrogation is "ok" in your mind, then your position isn't really "that form of interrogation is wrong". It's "all forms of interrogation are wrong". You're arguing a different point then the one you're actually stating in that case.

I'm just asking those who believe that the interrogation techniques used at gitmo are "wrong" to list off a set of techniques that they believe would be both effective at gaining information from the detainees *and* which they would approve of.

I don't think that's an unreasonable question to ask. I also think that if you *can't* do this, you might need to reassess what exactly it is that you're complaining about with regards to gitmo. All I'm trying to do here is maybe get people to realize that sometimes the things they blindly repeat don't mean what they think they mean. If you've just repeated the argument that what we're doing at gitmo is wrong, but you've never stopped to figure out what would be "right", then how did you decide what's wrong in the first place? If you can't even state where that line is, then how relevant is your insistence that we've crossed it? Isn't it more likely that you're just repeating what you've heard without ever really stopping to think the issue through? At the very least, how can anyone expect to change things to your satisfaction if you can't even say *what* they'd need to do?

I'm just asking people to actually think about their positions instead of just repeating them over and over. I do find the knee-jerk reaction to my request amusing though (and somewhat sad in a "critical thinking skills are dead" kinda way).

How about you name one good reason to defend the whole situation aside from the GOP's nuts being in your mouth, and without resorting to something Rush said last week?


I eagerly await a long post I won't read.

It's doing two things. It's shifting the actual questioning from investigating the actual topic--are these particular types of interrogation methods problematic and making it about the posters themselves having to justify their various positions on interrogation. It's not a fair question b/c it's not relevant at all. And it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The second is that there is an implication that is embedded in what you are saying. Basically, rather than saying that you are actually defending the methods used, you are shifting and demanding the other posters to respond about what they expect. It's a way of not actually answering the question.

I'll bite though and say the relevant parts of the critique are about the US refusing to conform to the Third and Fourth (esp in cases of those picked up far from any battlefield) Geneva Convention and not about my or anyone else's opinion of what are acceptable forms of interrogation. They are not holding the necessary Tribunals required by teh Geneva Law and in fact the International Red Cross has made a formal statement that the US is required to categorize these prisoners to a definition covered in the Geneva Convention as either a POW, a civilian, a medical personnel--obsensibly, no one in enemy hands should be outside international law.

The controversy about the designation of Unlawful Combantant is not the denial that they are being tortured but rather the attempt of the Bush administration to formally categorize them so they are not covered by any law. They do it also by having Gitmo on land leased from Cuba which is obstensibly an American facility--it puts the place in a convenient grey zone where it is neither covered by international or domestic law. If there was no question about the treatment of the prisoners, then there would be no attempt to subvert either the constitution nor international law.

They are held without charges, not categorized and subjected to treatment outside of the Geneva Convention. That's the critique. Most that are still being held are not going to be tried by any judicial body. None have been tried. Only 10 have been charged.



The FBI, in fact, have outlined recently the mistreatment of the people at Gitmo:




Given the fact that you can find it on their official website, I don't think it's a "leaked and unconfirmed memo"



The Red Cross has reported numerous concerns but have stopped short of filing an official stance b/c, like in many other countries, they are trying to maintain the neutrality to actually be able to stay in facilities in the US and in abroad. Your inaccuracy is both in not reporting the numerous statements that the Red Cross has made in expressing concern. Oh and this:



-Reuters



Edited, Jan 10th 2007 12:08pm by annabellaonalexander