Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
rOn Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:48:21 -0600, cavelamb
wrote:
Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:07:35 -0600, cavelamb
wrote:
Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:06:03 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:
"Ignoramus18994" wrote in message
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule
"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her
first interview since being named convening authority of military
commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February
2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's
why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.
"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which
they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent.
The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by
other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so
intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with
bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats
a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and
death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per
minute, the record shows.
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their
inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/
I don't condone torture. Will the hoopla over torture type events change
the ROE to the point of not taking prisoners? It would seem that in the
future, US forces would be much better off finalizing battles and having no
loose ends. Is that the way to go? Is the intelligence gained from taking
any prisoners worth the political fallout? How will this affect the mindset
of enemies when they know there will be no quarter given if they engage US
forces?
I recently read an article that stated that we had obtained
information from torture that prevented more then one terrorist attack
in the U.S.
Not to argue whether this article was truth or fiction, but if it is
true was the torture then justified? Or, should we count the ensuing
terrorist attack on US soil as collateral damage?
Cheers,
Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)
Aw Bruce,
A certain skepticism is called for these days.
We've been told so very many things about all this that turned out
to be misleading (at best).
Recognize the P word when it pops up?
Propaganda...
Myself, I look for the adverbs.
No. that isn't the question. The real question is will those who
condemn torture out of hand accept the stigmata of having caused the
death of their neighbors if torture would have prevented an atrocity?
If you want to put it in those terms, the yes, absolutely.
Like it or not, the idea of stopping someone from committing a crime
- before he actually does it - it illegal by our laws.
It's called prior restraint.
It is one thing to take the moral high ground when there is no danger
to you and yours but if your idealistic actions will cause the death
of someone, perhaps your own family, are you really sincere?
Bruce, I've been there.
Viet Nam - 1968 - 1969
1st of the 9th - 1st Cav
"The Head Hunters"
Your wife and family was in Vietnam?
I'm taking "the high moral ground" because it's the right path.
Again, I emphasis that I have no knowledge whether torture is
effective or not, nor argue one way or the other. I simply ask, if it
did work and if it did prevent an atrocity, if it did, perhaps,
prevent your wife from being slaughtered, then would you still condemn
it?
Yes I would.
Problem is, torture IS unreliable.
People will tell you anything they think you want to hear to stop it.
And other people will tell you anything to get away with it.
Step through the looking glass - it's all smoke and mirrors.
Cheers,
Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)
Again, that is not the question.
I am aware that physical torture is often unproductive, since as you
say, when they are beating on you will say anything to stop it.
On the other hand it has and did work in some/many instances. We had a
Psy-war airplane shot down in N. Korea and the crew captured. When
they were repatriated they stated that they had "talked" due to daily
beatings over a period of months.
My question, though, is whether those who condemn torture are prepared
to justify their stance should the failure to gain information known
the detainee result in an atrocity such as the WTC?
Perhaps a statement such as "Yes I know that the failure to obtain
information known to the detainees may result in an atomic weapon
being detonated in Times Square resulting in 257,000 fatalities and
possible another 1/4 million dying in the following 12 months due to
radioactive poisoning, and I am prepared to accept that I am solely
responsibility, both legally and morally, should an event of this
nature occur"?
Torture should remain illegal.
The "hidden bomb" scenario is much more "24" than real life.
Isn't it interesting that on TV the guy they torture is always a guy who
knows what we want to learn? In real life, we torture people to get
info they don't have, and so they give us whatever they think we want to
get it to stop, and we believe the crap, because we tortured the guy to
get it.
Even if torture was outlawed, there would be no way to prevent it's use,
but the people doing it, and the people ordering it, would know, and
should have known, that they are outside the law, and the situation and
the information should rise to a level where the risk of trial and
imprisonment would be justified by the danger averted. If a soldier
will jump on a grenade to save his comrades, a Sec.Def ought to be
willing to face prison or execution to save Times Square.
I doubt if any info we gather from people we have held for more than a
month could rise to this degree of importance.
We never tortured to get info from the Nazis or the Japanese, and we
have executed for war crimes people who used the very techniques we now
advocate.
Real intel is gathered by finding out what the target wants, and trading
for info. Sometimes that is a tuna sandwich, or a handful of Viagra.
And Yes, if thousands die because we didn't torture I am able to accept
that, because torture has far too many misuses. Before your 'atomic
bomb on times square' became a situation, the bomb had to be made, it
had to get into the wrong hands, it had to get into the US, and it had
to be placed in Times Square. At all of those points, there are things
that should be done to stop it. If that plot bears fruit, it wasn't
because we didn't torture, it is because we didn't stop proliferation,
didn't secure our borders and didn't maintain vigilance in monitoring
our enemies.
If torture ever had prevented a real attack, we would know details. The
sheer propaganda value against other terrorists would be overwhelming.
The planned attacks we know about were upset by good solid police and
intelligence work, using informants and wiretaps and citizens keeping an
eye out for odd behaviour.
Far fetched, possibly, but 9/11 was unthinkable on 8/11....
Bull****! "Bin Ladin determined to attack in the U.S." ring any bells?
FBI reports of middle eastern men seeking to learn to fly, but not land
jet airliners? Hear of those?
Stuart