It's wrong or its right. Make up your minds!

[billvon 2,991]

>So you mention 26 deaths at 3 different locations. Given the amount
> of prisoners and number of prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, I
>wouldn't call that rampant or widespread.

So that's what you would tell someone who is unsure if the US is systematically abusing arabs? "Yeah, we killed 26 and tortured hundreds, but see, we arrest so many arabs that you should be happy it's only 26!"

We are being seen as a country that is willing to torture and kill prisoners for no good reason. And every time another prisoner is killed by a zealous US interrogator for no good reason that image is reinforced. The right answer is that NO prisoners should be tortured to death, ever, and if it does happen it should be a very big stinking deal, not just 'a few isolated bad apples' that we don't have to worry about.

>We still have the same basic disagreement that all prisoners and
>dead are merely innocent victims.

No we don't, because I never said that.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

> Maybe you can point me to where, other than this instance (which
> has people being prosecuted for it), where it seems that torture (not
> just intimidation) is a systematic problem. Seriously.

The US military (which I hope you will agree is not a lefty reactionary US-hating organization) has concluded that 26 prisoner deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan have been homicides, in a report published March 26, 2005. The DoD removed 17 soldiers from duty at Abu Ghraib as a result of an investigation into torture there (which is just one prison.) Gen. Taguba documented many cases of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. Three coalition soldiers (UK) were accused of war crimes in Basra, where they beat and killed several detainees. Three US soldiers reported widespread abuse and torture, including putting acid into prisoner's eyes, at a camp called Mercury just outside Fallujah; they claim this was OK with their commander. Just this week two more US soldiers were charged with prisoner abuse in Afghanistan.

How many incidents would you have to see before you start thinking it might be more than one or two bad apples?

What report was this and where can I find it? Seems this is in your own words and I'd appreciate a chance to absolve you of any spin. At least in my mind.

What I find amusing is the assumptions that the horrible things that happen during war is "American policy."

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

What I find amusing is the assumptions that the horrible things that happen during war is "American policy."

Having secret prisons run by the CIA in foreign countries and hidden from any and all human rights organizations, both foreign and domestic is a horrible thing. It's apparently American policy.

[downwardspiral 0]

Please explain to me why that is horrible? Is it because you assume there is torture going on at these prisons based on the implication that there is a trend of torturing prisoners among coalition forces? And if there actually is a trend (which I do not believe there is), how is it a trend makes policy?

Have you ever been in combat? I haven't and I do not presume to know what its like.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Wopelao 0]

Yes, we all know what an american captive can expect if captured by the same radicals that are enjoying PC food, prayer time, and pretty much good treatment down in Cuba...

It is so humane!!!

[billvon 2,991]

>Please explain to me why that is horrible?

Cause when the USSR ran those very same gulags we called them horrible for doing it. Can't have it both ways.

>Have you ever been in combat?

We're not talking about combat. We're talking about a prison guard kicking a handcuffed detainee to death in a cell.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

>Please explain to me why that is horrible?

Cause when the USSR ran those very same gulags we called them horrible for doing it. Can't have it both ways.

>Have you ever been in combat?

We're not talking about combat. We're talking about a prison guard kicking a handcuffed detainee to death in a cell.

Come on yo....I have a lot of respect for your ability to argue a point and the above is pretty weak. Also still waiting for the source on that report of prisoner abuse from the DoD...

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[billvon 2,991]

>I have a lot of respect for your ability to argue a point and the
>above is pretty weak.

OK, so:

1. Were you OK with the USSR's gulags? If not, why are you OK with ours?

2. Do you honestly think that prison guards kill prisoners because they fear for their lives in the heat of battle?

>Also still waiting for the source on that report of prisoner abuse from the DoD...

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse

Will give you plenty of links to look at.

The Taguba report:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001/

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

OK, so:

1. Were you OK with the USSR's gulags? If not, why are you OK with ours?

I don't know jack about their gulags. I assume you are implying these involved abuse. I'm OK with ours because I am not assuming there is abuse in these prisons. A professional interrogator does not need to employ torture to break their subject. And yes I AM assuming the CIA is using professional interrogators in these facilities. They damn well better be.

Quote

2. Do you honestly think that prison guards kill prisoners because they fear for their lives in the heat of battle?

No. I think they do it because they are abusive individuals. I do not agree nor forgive their behavior. My point is in time of war bad shit happens and in no way are we Americans above the bad shit.

You are trying to make a connection between the prisoner abuse seen in Iraq and Afghanistan with the CIA by saying its American policy which to me is ridiculous. If our people in iraq are doing it then of course the CIA is doing it in Thailand War is hell and although it disgusts me, I can empathize with someone snapping after seeing many of their comrades blown to pieces.

Thanks for the links. Will have to check em out later when I have more time.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Mike111 0]

With people liek that, I support what they are doing.

Im not mad at all, and wish it didnt have to be done, but maybe it is acceptable.

Why? this exact reason as this thread has shown - "they cnt do that".

If preventing another attack means doing that, then if it is the only way to gain info (people who cut heads off are not likely to talk when being treated fairly) then so be it.

It needs to be kept quiet for reasons like this -" higher morality do not come into it IMHO.

I wouldn't suport it for ordinary terrorists but the masterminds who intend on using nuclear and chemicl weapons - they so be it it is a veyr unpleasant thing to do but a necessary one.

Call me what you want, btu I believe and won;t back down.

And NO im not mad or a tyrannist.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

but maybe it is acceptable.

No it isn't.

Quote

And NO im not mad

Yes you are! heh jkin

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Mike111 0]

yes veyr fuuny.

Well i disagree, but how would you get the info - ok youve got a bomb threat which could kill thoussnds and you need info - btu they aint talking.

What would you do?

Ask politely ? (not meant in an agressive way)

[wmw999 2,447]

As soon as you start torturing you focus on quantity vs. quality of information. WTF good does that do? You still have to check it out, and in all of those situations, people pretty much are resigned to dying anyway.

I'm (still) working on a good book about torture that includes a lot of interviews with torturers and torturees; it was written in Brazil, about the early 1970's when torture was pretty institutionalized.

The conclusion there (and there is plenty of material to work with -- it's not all conjecture) is that it's really about the system, and not the information. It reinforces the feelings of power, and lets you beat up on someone, but the information is almost always worthless.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[ReBirth 0]

What possible legitimate reason could there be, considering we have public prisons in Afghanistan, Cuba, and Iraq, to have additional COVERT prisons?

[Mike111 0]

This si the problem.

What gives the USA the right to torture over others?
Hwo can yo make sure it doesn;t get out of hand?
Can you justify it? - NO.

Torture - i dont mean on a rack with your arms being poked off - forced interogation and detention without will is OK is SOME CIRCUMSTANCES.

I don't wanna start a riot over this - but youre talking about masterminds who cut off people heads - now if let loose they would do JUST THAT.

Which do way you want it? have them as a threat or try and get something out of them which MIGHT help saves lives or not bother.

IT IS HORRIBLE TO DO SO - IM NOT DENYNIG IT, but maybe sometimes it is the ONLY way - these people wanna die for their cause and kill US westerners. and thy have and will do that.

I rather break a moral code and stay alive than die for some fuckwit who doesn;t give a shit if he klills me.

Once you have got the ifo, then it can stop IMMEDIATELY - btu youve got the problem fo them talking.

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

I rather break a moral code and stay alive

That's sad and all too common these days.

[Mike111 0]

Well you can go and die then for some fuckwit who wants to blow you up, leave me out of it.

thats not selfish - they put us in the position to make that choice, buy intending to kill us THEY BRING ON THEMSELVES.

w

[ReBirth 0]

I wouldn't die for some fuckwit who wants to kill me. But I would to uphold my personal moral code. You can't change your morals based on the situation. If you do, it's not really a moral code, it's a convenience.

It is pretty much the definition of selfish it you actually modify your morals to benefit your SELF. I agree that the terrorists are ultimately to blame for the current situation, but blame can be shared, and by stooping to their tactics, we would share some of it.

[Mike111 0]

Yes agreed - but how do you solve the immediate problem of the terorist? if they are not actively at that point trying to kill you, what the fuck do you do?

Wait till they are ready to kill you?

I don;'t break any other moral codes - i keep promises btu this is SLIGHTLY different.

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

Yes agreed - but how do you solve the immediate problem of the terorist?

I could tell you but I'd have to kill you Hell if I know. All I know is that whatever we may be doing now, it's been getting worse since we started doing it. Probably the ONLY way to IMMEDIATELY address the problem is hunker down defensively and stop pissing people off. Long term...that's a whole other discussion involving things like not supporting dictatorships or govt's that exploit their citizens, and not forcing our will on other nations.


Tell me something, what do you think your risk of being killed by a terrorist is compared to say, dying skydiving? If you're that scared of dying that you're willing to kill others, you might not want to get on that plane (or others might not want to get on with you).

[Mike111 0]

Eveyrone is afraid of dying thats normal mate.

Skydiving I CHOOSE to take the risk.

I DON@T when a terrorist tries and kill me.

I have no clue what the risk is, but the chocie thing 0 ISN:T THAT OBVIOUS?

[wmw999 2,447]

Quote

I DON@T when a terrorist tries and kill me.

I have no clue what the risk is, but the chocie thing 0 ISN:T THAT OBVIOUS?

Actually, by living in a society that values freedom over security (which I think England does as well as the US), you do choose to take that risk. By voting for candidates who will protect your civil liberties you choose to take that risk.

At least I do. I prefer not to take stupid ones, but the government cannot protect you from everything.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Mike111 0]

Well you also forgot -0 you still need to something IMMEDIATELY about the terrorist

Fuck long temr until youve dealt with the immediate threat.

So i ask you, what would you do?

Better to have an answer than none at all.

[Mike111 0]

Fair point, but sometimes isnt it fair to say that some risks are unnacceptable.

Fully agreed they can't always protect us , but if there is a way in which they can do so then maybe we shoudl let them?

Moreoverm, this is not like a genocide so its important to keep it in perspective.

[ReBirth 0]

Actually, I did address short term. Build up defenses and security...like our border which has more illegals crossing it now than BEFORE 9/11. Attack the terrorist strong hold (Afghanistan), but DON'T create a new strong hold for them (Iraq).

All of those soldiers in Iraq would be much more effective (and safer) on our borders than they are now. Plus their presence on our borders wouldn't piss off the cultures that breed terrorism.

Unfortunately, it's too late for that.