Originally Posted By ecdc Sorry Douglas. I'm typing on my phone and I posted 38 before I saw 37. Obviously war is messy. We shoot and blow up our enemies, so we obviously expect that to happen to us, sad and unpleasant as the reality might be. I'm just saying that anything we do, we can't complain about happening to us. We respond with outrage to terrorists sawing people's heads off on webcams because we aren't that barbaric, and we certainly don't do it to civilians. But this is the danger we get ourselves into. The Bush administration's invention of "enemy combatants" could put us in a position where our enemies label any American an "enemy combatant" and subject them to anything. So if we're ok with waterboarding, then we have to be ok with it happening to any captured American. If you're ok with that, that's fine. I'd just disagree. I don't want this happening to our soldiers if they're captured.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The Red Cross, THE authority on this matter, has said unambiguously that it was torture.> The Red Cross made that allegation based on one sided information. <All they've said is that these people received "enhanced interrogation" and eventually gave info.> Read the memos. They specifically credit these techniques with obtaining information needed to break up plots and catch more terrorists.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I don't want this happening to our soldiers if they're captured.> Again, I'd be happy if these techniques were the worst they could expect from our enemies.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<The Red Cross, THE authority on this matter, has said unambiguously that it was torture.>> <The Red Cross made that allegation based on one sided information.> No, they didn't. They spoke to Americans also. And they're trained to detect people lying about this subject. They found the allegations credible, and they called it, unambiguously, torture. Sorry, but I'll take their word over your assertions any day. There are also people who have been released as innocent who have talked about being tortured; these were not even terrorists, yet you either discount what they say or simply ignore it when I post links about it. <<All they've said is that these people received "enhanced interrogation" and eventually gave info.>> <Read the memos. They specifically credit these techniques with obtaining information needed to break up plots and catch more terrorists.> I did read the memos. They do not show what you think they show.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Again, I'd be happy if these techniques were the worst they could expect from our enemies.<< But there is the problem. When you allow "some" torture, you start losing the high ground and it is just one more reason enemies will ignore any calls for decent treatment. Not that they'd need much reason to ignore it. Most terrorist thugs are vicious and scoff at concepts such as fair treatment to prisoners. My hope is that we don't become more like them.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <you either discount what they say> I discounted the story of a guy who, two weeks after 9/11, headed off to Afghanistan with another suspected terrorist and got picked up, probably on his way to a terrorist camp. We tried to give him to the Germans, but they wouldn't take him because they suspected he was a terrorist, so he sat around in Gitmo. After being released, and not declared innocent, he claimed he had been tortured by us and the Germans, and wrote a book. Sorry if I don't find him credible.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I did read the memos. They do not show what you think they show.> They clearly state, in multiple places that the CIA credited the techniques with giving them valuable intelligence. I'll gladly pull the quotes if any reasonable poster asks to see them.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <My hope is that we don't become more like them.> My hope is that we don't become so unlike them that they beat us. "All that evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Originally Posted By piperlynne "In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; "And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up." - Neimoller
Originally Posted By Bob Benchley "They clearly state, in multiple places that the CIA credited the techniques with giving them valuable intelligence. I'll gladly pull the quotes if any reasonable poster asks to see them." And there we have it, people. What an elitist attiude. "(I)f any reasonable poster.....", thereby insulting everyone here, until this pompous windbag (hey, he insulted me first just now) decides you're GOOD ENOUGH for him to deign to respond. Blow it out your rear.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>My hope is that we don't become so unlike them that they beat us.<< They only win if we decide to follow in their footsteps, if we throw out hard-won principles. Better for us to maintain our own high standards rather than letting the agenda be set by thugs. No one is saying "do nothing." What many are saying is, let us win honorably, not by sinking down to their level.
Originally Posted By piperlynne As a bit of a corollary to ecdc's question. But from a different tact. Upon what you know of international humanitarian law, do you think what is referenced in those memos could be tried as torture realistically by an international court? The authors of those memo's went to an extreme amount of research and wording to prove their case of non-torture (I contend because they KNEW their actions would be scrutinized as such). But just because it is one persons legal opinion in a memo that what happened was not torture. Would the world court hold that the actions of our government were not torture based on the world courts standards? (assuming that what was done to those prisoners was only what was done under the exact circumstances outlined in those memos)??
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<you either discount what they say>> <I discounted the story of a guy who, two weeks after 9/11, headed off to Afghanistan with another suspected terrorist and got picked up, probably on his way to a terrorist camp.> Probably?? And you'd know this... how? Oh that's right. You wouldn't. <We tried to give him to the Germans, but they wouldn't take him because they suspected he was a terrorist, so he sat around in Gitmo.> The Germans were paranoid at first of a guy we picked up and said was a terrorist. Later, after they learned the facts, they ASKED FOR HIS RELEASE. From the previous link: "At the same time, German intelligence agents wrote their government, saying, "USA considers Murat Kurnaz’s innocence to be proven. He is to be released in approximately six to eight weeks." Freaking Angela Merkel intervened in his behalf. Good grief, Doug, you actually think you can post half-truths like your above paragraph and not be called on it? And you think you can be taken seriously here? <After being released, and not declared innocent, he claimed he had been tortured by us and the Germans, and wrote a book. Sorry if I don't find him credible.> See above. You don't find him credible because you don't want to admit we torture people. But we have. <<I did read the memos. They do not show what you think they show.>> <They clearly state, in multiple places that the CIA credited the techniques with giving them valuable intelligence. > First of all, remember that the people saying this are covering their own butts. As you might say, they are simply "asserting" things we have no proof of. And even their assertions don't pass the smell test. <a href="http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/18/debunking-the-torture-apologists-half-the-intelligence-claim/" target="_blank">http://emptywheel.firedoglake....e-claim/</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The authors of those memo's went to an extreme amount of research and wording to prove their case of non-torture (I contend because they KNEW their actions would be scrutinized as such). > Exactly right, piperlynne. But the Red Cross has called it torture anyway.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The authors of those memo's went to an extreme amount of research and wording to prove their case of non-torture (I contend because they KNEW their actions would be scrutinized as such). << Good point.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***<But it worked.>*** If true (and the experts I've read from seem to all disagree with you but I'll give you the benefit here), then answer this Doug. In order to protect America from another 9/11, should the authorities be able to use ANY means if they might be effective? Genital electrocution? Mock execution? Raping their daughter in front of them? Water-boarding? Thumbscrews? Can you answer specifically about these five techniques? I'd really like to know which you believe justifiable since your recent argument has hinged upon "it worked".
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <"(I)f any reasonable poster.....", thereby insulting everyone here, until this pompous windbag (hey, he insulted me first just now) decides you're GOOD ENOUGH for him to deign to respond.> I've insulted no one. If you consider yourself an unreasonable poster, then that's on you.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They only win if we decide to follow in their footsteps, if we throw out hard-won principles.> They also win if they kill a whole bunch of innocent people. Maybe it's not a complete win, but it's one I'd like to deny them. <What many are saying is, let us win honorably, not by sinking down to their level.> What I'm saying is, that's what we've been doing the whole time.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Probably?? And you'd know this... how?> Do you have a better theory to explain his movements? And you know it . . . How? <Later, after they learned the facts, they ASKED FOR HIS RELEASE.> About four years later, after Schroeder was replaced as Chancellor. <Good grief, Doug, you actually think you can post half-truths like your above paragraph and not be called on it?> If you have facts that contradict what I said, please post them. Otherwise we can go down the path where you make accusations, I deny them, and everyone else gets annoyed. <First of all, remember that the people saying this are covering their own butts.> Of course, the men serving our country are untrustworthy, while those making accusations are unimpeachable. Couldn't it also be true that the authors of these memos, because they KNEW their actions would be scrutinized, went to an extreme amount of research and caution to make sure these techniques weren't torture?
Originally Posted By Bob Benchley "I've insulted no one. If you consider yourself an unreasonable poster, then that's on you." Nope, no and not a chance. By reserving the right to decide who is reasonable, you've impugned the integrity of everyone else here by implying you're better than everyone, giving yourslef the right to decide. What gives YOU the right to decide who is reasonable? You didn't say "reasonable request", you said "reasonable poster". Ain't semantics great?
