The Hoodie Dude Got Sprung

[brokenhallelujah]

Do you, for example, mean treating them like criminal defendants under U.S. criminal law? Full "due process"?

Yes, actually, that's exactly what I mean. Treat anyone that falls into our custody with by the same standards that we *aspire* to apply to our own citizenry. I am NOT arguing for absolute standards of right and wrong, however. I don't think that's within the perview of human understanding. I am suggesting that we be consistent in the way that we treat all who fall under our jurisdiction, by whatever means they happen to do so. We have, as a culture, and by concensus, decided that we will treat people a certain way. I hope we are making better decisions as the years go by -- I hope that what happened to Japanese Americans during WWII would never happen again.

Is it out of the question? Might we decide that we are not the kind of society that is capable of being tolerant and civil and ruled by the law and governance of the people? Sure. Some would say we are already making that transisition. But I hope that we can be honest with ourselves while we do it. We cannot, on the one hand, say that we (for example) support the right to life for unborn fetuses in the USA, but not be concerned with the death of an innocent Iraqi child. We cannot excuse that with a "wrong place, wrong time" mentality and just keep on rolling.

Consistency. We have to have consitency.

As for the question of the psychotic fourteen year old? Well, I can't say that the natural drive for self-preservation wouldn't kick in. I don't know. I have never been threatened by a fourteen year old with a firearm. Who could shoot. Well. At me. Right and wrong are, societally speaking, again defined by concensus. I cannot decide what the "greater good" might be in that scenario by principle. I could act out of self defence, out of a biological imperative to live. But to make that decision based on the idea of a "greater good" (or "lesser evil"), I would have to consult the "greater" that would decide the "good." Which brings us back to laws. Principles. Standards. Ideals. Not perfect, but (more or less?) democratically decided.

These are the things that are, to me, the quintessence of America. And when we start to play with double standards concerning things like torture, I think we are moving dangerously far from that.

 

[richardallen]

Is taking away sleep torture? Yes, one of the worst kinds.

I wonder how many will be advocating this form of interrogation when it's happening to them. I mean, if it works so well, it should be a standard procedure, right?

Thomas, I see where you are going with 1000, 100000, etc lives. I'd say we apply it mandatory. Maybe we can save lives.

My problem with torture is that you always at some point end up torturing people who are innocent and know nothing. I dont want to do this. Other may disagree.

Keno

 

[Thomas Linton]

Yes, actually, that's exactly what I mean. Treat anyone that falls into our custody with by the same standards that we *aspire* to apply to our own citizenry. I am NOT arguing for absolute standards of right and wrong, however. I don't think that's within the perview of human understanding. I am suggesting that we be consistent in the way that we treat all who fall under our jurisdiction, by whatever means they happen to do so. We have, as a culture, and by concensus, decided that we will treat people a certain way. I hope we are making better decisions as the years go by -- I hope that what happened to Japanese Americans during WWII would never happen again.

Is it out of the question?

Yes. It is totally out of the question even forgetting if it would be otherwise appropriate.

Apply your proposed standard of treatment to Gulf I = 10,000's of lawyers just for the POW's;10,000's of JAG prosecutors; 10,000's of judges; 100,000's of hearings with 10,000's of court reporters and 10,000's of other support personnel; $billions for courtrooms; 100's of billions worth of prisons that need to be built from scratch -- somewhere -- to meet the standards required by the USSC (not achieved for our own citizens yet); food; entertainment and recreation; medical care (including expensive, heroic medical care). The total cost would be staggering.

Cost matters. Always does. What "entitlement" projects are you willing to give up? Tax Freedom Day is in mid-May now.

Will France will help pay for it? Maybe Sweden. The UN? Would it take $$ away from fighting malaria?

We cannot, on the one hand, say that we (for example) support the right to life for unborn fetuses in the USA, but not be concerned with the death of an innocent Iraqi child. We cannot excuse that with a "wrong place, wrong time" mentality and just keep on rolling.

Consistency. We have to have consitency.

Humanity knows no such consistentcy. Distinguishing is part of life. We - humanity as a species and as various societies -- clearly have never assigned equal value to all people, under all circumstances, in all places.

We sure "can" pay attention to our people before the rest of the world. We sure "can" pay more attention to our child than to the beautiful little child next door - or in Iraq.

You may say it's illogical, but you cannot say it "can't" be. It's hard-wired into our makeup as a good survival characteristic. You may say it's illogical, but you will have a very hard time finding folks to agree with you, and no one will actually behave acccording to your standard.

Show of hands. Who's for "Let my kid drown; save the neighbor's kid instead"?

As for the question of the psychotic fourteen year old? Well, I can't say that the natural drive for self-preservation wouldn't kick in. I don't know. I have never been threatened by a fourteen year old with a firearm. Who could shoot. Well. At me. Right and wrong are, societally speaking, again defined by concensus. I cannot decide what the "greater good" might be in that scenario by principle. I could act out of self defence, out of a biological imperative to live. But to make that decision based on the idea of a "greater good" (or "lesser evil"), I would have to consult the "greater" that would decide the "good." Which brings us back to laws. Principles. Standards. Ideals. Not perfect, but (more or less?) democratically decided.

See, you are honest. You see yourself compromising. You have to in the real world -- where decisions are not between absolute, unalloyed good vs. absolute bad.

Societies come to general understanding -- a consensus -- on the compromises and that's what that society calls "good." So if a 20-year-old marries a 14-year-old, whether that is "bad" or "normal.good" depends on where or when.

Nothing wrong with aspirations. They should inform compromise. It just seems like a long, slow climb from animalistic behavior to the higher good -- even if there was agreement, even in a single country -- on what the higher good might be.


(And friend, you haven't told me what "torture" is. If we are going to stop "it," we need to know what "it" is.)

 

[brokenhallelujah]

Define "torture"... Okay, define "is."

You want to go this direction, we certainly can! But I think there are discussion boards for semioticians that would be more appropriate.

I don't know how you define torture. How do I define torture? Being subjected to something that one does not wish to be subjected to. Being forced to LISTEN to Brittney as opposed to just watch her gyrate? Pure torture. Given that option I would rather not even watch.

You might not agree with me, Tom. That's why there can't be a universal definition of ANYTHING as long as language is involved.

And as for quoting me... context, sir, context. My words were:

"I hope that what happened to Japanese Americans during WWII would never happen again.

Is it out of the question? Might we decide that we are not the kind of society that is capable of being tolerant and civil and ruled by the law and governance of the people? Sure. Some would say we are already making that transisition. But I hope that we can be honest with ourselves while we do it."

I will grant you this: it would be impossible to duplicate, in its entirety, the American legal system for enemy combatants; for starters, that's a sort of "torture" that I wouldn't wish on anyone...

But I wasn't asking if it was possible to give them those kinds of rights at all. I was just saying that I thought it was morally correct to try to do so: the spirit ought to be the same for them as for us, i.e., some sort of due process should be in place. And if they don't have enough on them to try them, to charge them outright... Then let them go. I don't know where. But somewhere where they aren't under our care and supervision. I think the moral issue is too slippery.

And as for my kid vs. the neighbor's kid... well, that would depend on whether I had set fire to my neighbor's house or not, I suppose. At that point, I think my responsiblity would be to the one most in immanent danger. And that would depend on my perception of the situation.

And that is the definition of relative. Subjective. It's why we have social concensus. It's why we have democracy. We hope that everyone's subjectivity piled together is less relative than the subjectivity of just one of us. That's why we *claim* to be a country that exists by the rule of law. It's why the highest authority is not an office, or institution, but a DOCUMENT.

And, Thomas, I am certainly not trying to step in and say, "Here's a simple solution..." I would just like to see us handling it with a little more self-scrutiny. As you say, questions are more important, often, than answers. I think we, as a nation, need to ask more of these questions of ourselves.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Is taking away sleep torture? Yes, one of the worst kinds.

I wonder how many will be advocating this form of interrogation when it's happening to them. I mean, if it works so well, it should be a standard procedure, right?

Thomas, I see where you are going with 1000, 100000, etc lives. I'd say we apply it mandatory. Maybe we can save lives.

My problem with torture is that you always at some point end up torturing people who are innocent and know nothing. I dont want to do this. Other may disagree.

Keno

Richard, sleep deprivation is rough, for sure. The Nazi's and Soviets found out sleep deprivation causes people to lose track of reality. In that state, the victims lose all inhibitions. They forget duty, honor, country, Allah. The governments who agree that it's "torture" are not in the fight.

Don't know what you mean by "apply it mandatory."

One problem with war is that at some point we -- humanity -- end up killing non-combatants even when we don't intend to. We accept this as part of war. The "Law of War" accepts this as a part of war while trying to fence it in and minimize. Those "collateral damage" (God, I hate that expression!) casualities are permanently dead. We say that those deaths are "necessary" (if "regretable") in order to protect our soldier's lives. Sleep deprivation?

POSITION: The Law of War regarding treatment of POW's is primarily driven by the hope of securing humane treatment for YOUR people.

It is NOT motivated by humane feelings towards the enemy.

The secondary motivation is that prisoners who expect barbaric treatment fight to the last, increaing YOUR casualites.

Historically, and without any exception that I can find, where the "other side" simply will not treat your people humanely regardless of your humane treament of their people, the primary motivation for being humane goes away. War then decends to retaliatory barbarism. You do it to us so we do it to you. You bomb our cities; we incinerate yours. You execute our POW's, we take no prisoners. By historic standards, our reaction to terrorists is remarkably restrained. See more U.S. city-centers in smoldering ruin, and I wonder how long that will last.

 

[Thomas Linton]

. . .
I don't know how you define torture. How do I define torture? Being subjected to something that one does not wish to be subjected to. Being forced to LISTEN to Brittney as opposed to just watch her gyrate? Pure torture. Given that option I would rather not even watch.

You might not agree with me, Tom. That's why there can't be a universal definition of ANYTHING as long as language is involved.

Knowing how YOU define "torture" helps me understand what you want to stop. Brittany. OK :thumbup: (Imagine. That will be "elevator music" in twenty years.:barf: )

But I wasn't asking if it was possible to give them those kinds of rights at all.

See. it's hard work to communcaite. I tought you asked just that very thing.

I was just saying that I thought it was morally correct to try to do so: the spirit ought to be the same for them as for us, i.e., some sort of due process should be in place. And if they don't have enough on them to try them, to charge them outright... Then let them go. I don't know where. But somewhere where they aren't under our care and supervision. I think the moral issue is too slippery.

Most prisoners taken in war have commited no crime recognized by our law or "international law." No charge to bring. We just have the right under the "Law of War" to hold them in certain conditions "for the duration" if they are POWs. Different conditions apply if they are non-POW "enemy combatants." Remember, this second category of folks were simply shot out-of-hand as late as the 1950's, so there has been some progress in some places.

And as for my kid vs. the neighbor's kid... well, that would depend on whether I had set fire to my neighbor's house or not, I suppose. At that point, I think my responsiblity would be to the one most in immanent danger. And that would depend on my perception of the situation.

You didn't set the fire. A terrorist set the fire. They are equally in danger. You will go for your kid. That reaction is part of what makes you human.

And, Thomas, I am certainly not trying to step in and say, "Here's a simple solution..." I would just like to see us handling it with a little more self-scrutiny. As you say, questions are more important, often, than answers. I think we, as a nation, need to ask more of these questions of ourselves.

Didn't think you were and could not agree more. Questions are good.

 

[arty]

Torture - Once you get to the point of having to define it - you already have it.

Leaving people out in the cold to die a slow death is not treating them humanely.

Rendering prisoners to Egypt - with no trial - is not what democracies should do.

The Egyptians tell their prisoners that they have dogs that have been trained to .........

Gross - but is this torure? You decide.

 

[bwray]

Like the folks at the History Dept. and the Law School, some would be more comfortable putting me in a nice, neat category that exists in their head.
Sorry. (Well, not really.)

What other "position" do you want to hear about? Am I a nominee for the Supreme Court?

You mean I get to ask a question? Okay, what is your position on mindless posturing? (This is strictly off the record and will have no effect whatsoever on your pending Supreme Court nomination.)

 

[richardallen]

See those pics coming out of Abu Gharib? Fits my definition of torture perfectly. I'd like to stop that.

What did I mean by mandatory? I was being a bit cynical, because it confuses my that more and more people start advocating torture.
If torture works so well, and if you save lives by torturing people, everyone should be tortured if they get caught for any crime. Why would one want to restrict this wonderful live-saving technique to POW?

On a more serious side: I dont know about you, not sure if you missed that part of my post - my problem with torturing is not the procedure itself, but the fact that you will for sure end up torturing totally innocent people. I wouldn't want to carry that burdon. It's a matter of principles.

Keno

 

[hollowdweller]

Wow. 49 posts. I think when prisoners When prisoners are beaten to death that to me qualifies

Manadel al-Jamadi was captured in November by US Navy SEALs, an elite commando force. Pentagon sources and the CIA have said that Mr. al-Jamadi was already in poor health when he was turned over to prison authorities on Nov. 4, but the Navy has denied this, claiming that Mr. al-Jamadi was received at the prison in good health. His autopsy revealed that he had been beaten to death.

Seymour M. Hersh reported in The New Yorker that in November, a prisoner was beaten to death while undergoing interrogation. His body was packed in ice overnight. The next day Army medics placed an IV on one arm, and the body was walked out of the interrogation area on a stretcher.

I'm not gonna post any of thes pictures but I'd say about half of these here qualify as torture and half would be more non torture. Warning disturbing pics, but relevant to our discussion:

http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=8560

 

[bwray]

I'm not gonna post any of thes pictures but I'd say about half of these here qualify as torture and half would be more non torture. Warning disturbing pics, but relevant to our discussion:

http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=8560

Thanks HD. These photos put extreme legaleze in proper perspective.:thumbup:

 

[Thomas Linton]

Torture - Once you get to the point of having to define it - you already have it.

Not very useful. "Britteny"?

Leaving people out in the cold to die a slow death is not treating them humanely.

How very, very true.

Rendering prisoners to Egypt - with no trial - is not what democracies should do.

The Egyptians tell their prisoners that they have dogs that have been trained to .........

Gross - but is this torure? You decide.

Good point. One does not avoid responsibility by having a thrid party do the deed.

 

[Thomas Linton]

You mean I get to ask a question? Okay, what is your position on mindless posturing? (This is strictly off the record and will have no effect whatsoever on your pending Supreme Court nomination.)

I never accused you of that. Wouldn't be polite or appropriate here.

 

[brokenhallelujah]

Umm... Yeah. I had seen some of these photos. Not nearly that many. Thanks HD.

I am disgusted. And I really, really do support the military, by and large. But some of this stuff... It doesn't even look like there was much of an objective to the torture. Just humiliation.

And that, all arguments aside, is dehumanizing, cruel, and unusual.

God forgive us...

 

[Thomas Linton]

Wow. 49 posts. I think when prisoners When prisoners are beaten to death that to me qualifies

Manadel al-Jamadi was captured in November by US Navy SEALs, an elite commando force. Pentagon sources and the CIA have said that Mr. al-Jamadi was already in poor health when he was turned over to prison authorities on Nov. 4, but the Navy has denied this, claiming that Mr. al-Jamadi was received at the prison in good health. His autopsy revealed that he had been beaten to death.

Seymour M. Hersh reported in The New Yorker that in November, a prisoner was beaten to death while undergoing interrogation. His body was packed in ice overnight. The next day Army medics placed an IV on one arm, and the body was walked out of the interrogation area on a stretcher.

I'm not gonna post any of thes pictures but I'd say about half of these here qualify as torture and half would be more non torture. Warning disturbing pics, but relevant to our discussion:

http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=8560

All valid comments in their own right, but nothing that will change the rules. Under current conditions, we (but not the other side, of course) will admit that beating people to death, electrocution, mutilation is "torture." We will not attempt to justify such measures. There will be denials that such tactics were used. Nothing new there. "I didn't do it" is the prototypical response to wrongdoing.

The attempt IS to justify "pressure" tactics, like sleep deprivation, loud noise, isolation. "I know it when I see it" does not create a code of conduct to bar such tactics. The argument is over whether such "pressure" violates current codes OR, if it does not, whether codes should be changed to expressly bar such "pressure."

Current international law does bar such "pressure" on POW's. So the question of whether a prisoner is a POW is not mental masturbation.

 

[richardallen]

Well since the detainees at G'Bay are not prisoners of war, everything is possible and fair, right?

Why do we have to make a difference between different methods of torture? Correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure that sleep deprivation can be deadly if you prolong it over a too long period. Still this is merely a pressure tactic. Isolation can make people go crazy, even kill them (some natives populations have been know to not handle isolation well, I think it was Aborigines). Drowning people, pressure tactic? Mutilation is merely a form of mental pressure, isn't it?

I find it irritating that there is a difference between what is legally wrong and what is morally wrong.

Keno

Edit:
Current international law - who cares anyway? If Amnesty International bashes China for torturing people, everyone agrees, if they point their finger on a more popular country [hint hint] they're liars. I've read too many discussions here on BF advocating torture and dismissing Amnesty International , and I simply don't understand it.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Umm... Yeah. I had seen some of these photos. Not nearly that many. Thanks HD.

I am disgusted. And I really, really do support the military, by and large. But some of this stuff... It doesn't even look like there was much of an objective to the torture. Just humiliation.

And that, all arguments aside, is dehumanizing, cruel, and unusual.

God forgive us...

Historically, battlefield prisoners are made the objects of retaliation and revenge. For example, the number of snipers taken prisoner approaches zero because they are loathed by combat soldiers. Somehow, getting zapped taking a dump seems beyond the pale. Machinegunners who fire up to the point of capture typically do not survive the experience. I am confident that summary executions are taking place in Irag.

What adds to the reaction here is that the wrongdoers at AG were NOT combat soldiers acting in the heat of the battlefield but rear-area non-combat types.

I suppose that in any large organization there are sociopaths, but the more serious issue, noted above, is the extent of knowledge or approval by officers -- even field-grade officers -- of the terror and humiliation at AG. Were the actual actors simply out of control and unsupervised or was this reign of terror given some "official" approval by act or omission?

Intenational law prohbits deliberately humiliating POW's by the way.

 

[brokenhallelujah]

I suppose that in any large organization there are sociopaths, but the more serious issue, noted above, is the extent of knowledge or approval by officers -- even field-grade officers -- of the terror and humiliation at AG. Were the actual actors simply out of control and unsupervised or was this reign of terror given some "official" approval by act or omission?

Intenational law prohbits deliberately humiliating POW's by the way.

Yep. Bingo. And the chain of command is usually a lot more precise than that. Not a whole lot -- especially of this magnitude -- happens that someone higher up isn't made aware of. In the field, maybe. At a prison like AG... I don't know. Doesn't jive.

The question is, what do we here at home do about something like this? Besides vote... I don't see this issue becoming a plank for either party at this point. Someone, please, correct me. Tell me I have my head in the sand.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Well since the detainees at G'Bay are not prisoners of war, everything is possible and fair, right?

"Possible"? Sure. We're taking homo sap. here.

"Fair, right"? Current opinions as to what is "right" differ - even in the U.S., much less the "West." Want to put sleep-deprivation of "terrorists" to a vote here? Israel? UK? How about France?

Why do we have to make a difference between different methods of torture?

Keno, "torture" is simply a label for what is not acceptable according to current rules. While there is agreement that certain conduct is "torture," there is not agreement that other unpleasant treatment is "torture." Specifically, there is disagreement on all the things that may (should) be done to "enemy combatants" -- non-POW's

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure that sleep deprivation can be deadly if you prolong it over a too long period. Still this is merely a pressure tactic.

Sleep deprivation usually does not kill. The victim passes out. What is "useful" to the questioners is that the victim becomes psychotic. In that state, he can be convinced that the questioner is his mother/father/friend. ("Son, where did you put that atomic bomb in New York City? We ned to make sure it's OK."

And yes, several governments, of which the U.S. is one, do not classify sleep-deprivation as "torture." Those who disagree need to contact their legislators -- or other powerful persons or organizations.

Isolation can make people go crazy, even kill them (some natives populations have been know to not handle isolation well, I think it was Aborigines).

Yet isolation -- even total isolation -- is used in virtually every nation on earth as punishment. If it is approved to inflict revenge on criminals, should it not be used if saving lives is the objective? Unpleasant isolation vs. Berlin as a slag pile (again)?

Drowning people, pressure tactic?

Hard to see how anyone could say it's not torture. The victim is pushed under water to simulate drowning, revived, pushed under again -- over and over. Just imagine. This is treatment on a nightmare level. "Tomorrow, we repeat until you talk. And it better be the truth or you will find out what we do when we're really upset with you, Lt. Carson."

Mutilation is merely a form of mental pressure, isn't it?

Not really. It causes actual, physical pain and can result in permanent disfiguring, disability, and death.

I find it irritating that there is a difference between what is legally wrong and what is morally wrong.

There are usually a variety of moral codes within each jurisdiction. The law seldom complies with all of these moral codes. The abortion debate is, perhaps, the prime example in the U.S. Slavery was once the prime example here. Every nation has its examples.

Current international law - who cares anyway? If Amnesty International bashes China for torturing people, everyone agrees, if they point their finger on a more popular country [hint hint] they're liars. I've read too many discussions here on BF advocating torture and dismissing Amnesty International , and I simply don't understand it.

Amnesty International only in part tries to vindicate law. It also seeks complaince with its own code -- a code that surpasses the requirements of law.

There is a consensus in Germany on such matters -- not 100%, but a clear consensus. It was, as you know, purchased at a terrible price. We have no such consensus here. That is why movies and TV programs showing police or military torturing or killing prisoners as acceptable behavior -- or at least understandable behavior -- are not greeted with mass outcries of disapproval.

 

[richardallen]

There is a consensus in Germany on such matters -- not 100%, but a clear consensus. It was, as you know, purchased at a terrible price. We have no such consensus here. That is why movies and TV programs showing police or military torturing or killing prisoners as acceptable behavior -- or at least understandable behavior -- are not greeted with mass outcries of disapproval.

At least the two of us have a consensus on that one :thumbup:

regards,

Keno