When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
Mata said: So moose, if the act of waterboarding is “torture”, when do you suggest we start prosecuting the US military SERE trainers?
Moose said: I suggest we don’t, and no matter where you are in this argument, most people will make the distinction between volunteers and detainees
I see… so “torture” is now defined by what the detainees do “voluntarily” as opposed to the act. So why don’t you tell us what the detainees will “agree” to in giving up intel info, Moose. Of course, it follows, that anything they don’t volunteer for is “torture”.
If our guys are subjected to it, and are not permanently harmed, it is not “torture” by any definition. If you want to name it so, take the consequences and Pandora’s box you open by the “voluntary” argument. i.e., they dont want MikeyD’s happy meals that night, or it’s torture. They don’t want to read this or that book because it’s available in the library , or it’s torture. They don’t want to be confined in their cell on a sunny day, or it’s torture.
Your willing suspension of disbelief INRE waterboarding/torture-only-if-involuntary is nothing less than absurd.
Moose. watching some of the Hollywood filth where the “stars” only talent is to Curse, sweat, take of their clothes, screw, wreck cars, blow up lots of stuff, and kill people in hideous ways is torture, I avoid that at all cost. I have been water boarded, it’s not pleasant, but it is not torture
mooseburger
13 years ago
Mata: The training our guys go thru was specifically designed to aid them in resisting torture interrogations that may be employed by an enemy who would not abide by the Geneva convention. The training was not designed to extract confessions or intel, but to train our troops in how to deal with a situation where torture was unlawfully applied.
Your statement: “I see… so “torture” is now defined by what the detainees do “voluntarily” as opposed to the act. So why don’t you tell us what the detainees will “agree” to in giving up intel info, Moose.”
This twists and blurs the distinction. I didn’t say or imply that detainees get to define what they will agree with in order to give up intel. The fact that this training is for the very purpose of resisting torture from an enemy who would not follow the Geneva Convention guidelines should tell you something about what these procedures, when applied to detainees, could reasonably be concluded to be.
If we use it our guys for training, it is not to extract info or obtain cooperation. If on the other hand, it was used on our guys as a punishment or during interrogation after arrest for a crime while they were in the Brig or something, then it does become quite another thing, does it not?
@Marion Valentine: Perhaps you could expand on your personal experience with waterboarding. Apparently, Mossy missed it when you mentioned it. Probably the kind of attention deficit thing we could expect from someone on a diet of road kill.
Mike, I was water boarded in 1959, didn’t think it was too big of a deal then, and don’t think it is now, not much more than kids playing around and ducking each other in the swimming pool, the only really uncomfortable thing I remember is being restrained, course i have never liked having my arms held or restrained in any way. Only 3 terrorists were water boarded, that’s a lot easier than they deserve, and since valuable Info was gotten with out any loss of limbs, organs, or internal injuries to the terrorists, all well and good.
@Marion Valentine: My neighbor teaches courses in counter terrorism and we were discussing the subject today. I was shocked at how ill-informed he was on the subject of waterboarding. He did not even know the basic facts of how many of these monsters were waterboarded. The only thing he did know is the left wing distorted talking point about the “180” waterboarding incidents. I had to inform him that referred to the number of times water was poured on the terrorists, not the number of sessions.
All these folks like Mossy get their information from “news” sources with a bias that is so glaring they can’t even present the basics of journalism 101 and answer the who, what, where, when, why or how.
It’s all manufactured mass hysteria based on willful ignorance designed to serve a defeatist, anti-American ideology.
Meanwhile, there is real trouble in the world that is not going away and we have all wasted weeks discussing something that Democrats previously agreed was a good idea.
When we are hit again and people ask why we didn’t find the information in time that could have prevented it, they will want to know why Dems wasted so much time on a non story. And why they handcuffed the very people who could have stopped it.
Yeah Mike like I said in a couple of my articles,,,this crap cam out, and will hold the peoples and the media attention for a few days, already something else to take it’s place, “Cap And Trade”, Global warming fraud, before that it was the union vote, all just smoke and mirrors, so folks won’t notice O and his cronies, getting control of Banking, businesses, production, and everything else, their only agenda is CONTROL.
What do you think the “created” crisis will be that will be the trigger for Obama to declare national martial law?
Complete collapse of the economy?
Biological Terrorist attack
Pandemic
or Famine
Mike, martial law is the nest step for Obama, mimicing the footsteps of his hero Hugo Chavez, over a year ago i wrote, “Can Obama pull off a Hugo Chavez, you can bet your assets”
mooseburger
13 years ago
Mike said: All these folks like Mossy get their information from “news” sources with a bias that is so glaring they can’t even present the basics of journalism 101 and answer the who, what, where, when, why or how.
I been gettin’ some of my news here too, Mke. I don’t make any claim to be a journalist. In my book, folks who at least care, get involved enough to try and be informed as best they can, and engage in discussion with even those they disagree with are a couple notches above folks who don’t get involved, don’t vote and don’t care. You should be able to admit, Mike, that glaring bias knows no party or ideology, Hannity is a case in point.
About releasing the photos of more harsh treatment, bad idea, as I mentioned this earlier in the thread. This will inflame Americans, Muslims, and stir up more crap than it will solve. For all the talk about Bush and Radical Islamic recruiting tools, releasing those photos goes against that argument.
About that waterboarding Marion, doesn’t sound much worse than kids playing around in the water…I wonder why the Bush DOJ spent all that time and effort into writing those lengthy memos on something that is no more of a big deal than that?
Mike said: All these folks like Mossy get their information from “news” sources with a bias that is so glaring they can’t even present the basics of journalism 101 and answer the who, what, where, when, why or how
Yep I’m still waiting for a list of non-bias news sources….
@GaffaUK: So Gaffa, where did YOU learn about how many terrorists were waterboarded? I’m assuming you know the answer by now.
@mooseburger: Mossy, all those lawyers in the Bush Administration were doing their job. Which is more than I can say for Obama.
Meanwhile, I doubt any of you are really informed about what is happening in Pakistan.
mooseburger
13 years ago
Mike: Taliban has about taken over Pakistan.
All those lawyers had nothing better to do than write memos for splashin’ and dunkin’ and a bit of water fun? That sounds like fun too….
BTW..sorry for the bit off topic, but here’s some news that’s not from one of those shrill partisan sources, this comes from the horses mouth, the second in command on the boat the pirates seized the Captain from;
@mooseburger: If you are going to be pointing fingers at the Bush Administration lawyers you need to ask why Obama is wasting all his time throwing bones to the left wing haters.
I’d rather see a roomful of lawyers twiddle their thumbs than a President sit by and watch while Pakistan burns.
Remember what happened in Iran? Oh, that reminds me… who was President when we lost Iran because we were too busy with a bunch of left wing foolishness?
Moose: The training our guys go thru was specifically designed to aid them in resisting torture interrogations that may be employed by an enemy who would not abide by the Geneva convention. The training was not designed to extract confessions or intel, but to train our troops in how to deal with a situation where torture was unlawfully applied.
~~~
If we use it our guys for training, it is not to extract info or obtain cooperation.
Incorrect, Moose. The SERE training imprisons troops, puts them thru known coercive methods commonly used with the attempt to get them to sign papers and give up information. It’s not just a “here’s what it feels like”. The trainer/interrogators do indeed have the goal of breaking them for info.
From the link above I provided from a SERE training grad:
SERE is Survival, Evasion, Resistance & Escape training and is a course for those in high possibility of enemy capture i.e. Special Forces, SEALS, Rangers, Force Recon etc. The course starts with Survival which is self-explanatory, many bunnies die so we may live, then comes Evasion where the students attempt to evade capture while being pursued, they are eventually scarfed up and then comes the fun part, Resistance. Students are transported to a prison facility and then get the Full Monty of coercive interrogation techniques in order to get them to sign a paper admitting to war crimes. All students know going in that they would spend less than a week in the prison, and that they couldn’t actually be damaged permanently, yet virtually everyone of these macho studs “Signs Ze Papah” (Remember him stupeed one?). All of the students go in talking smack about how they will hang on and tough it out and in the end, I have only heard of one time when a group of Rangers banded together and fought their way out, all the rest of our biggest tough guys caved.
Odd that you don’t whine about other coercive methods they are also put thru.. just waterboarding. What if it were the steady drip of Chinese water torture? Forced nudity? Yet you continually fall back on your “voluntary” vs “involuntary” argument as the difference. Yet when I ask you what you may deem appropriate coercive methods that detainees may “volunteer” for, thereby making it “okay” in your opinion, you merely say:
This twists and blurs the distinction. I didn’t say or imply that detainees get to define what they will agree with in order to give up intel. The fact that this training is for the very purpose of resisting torture from an enemy who would not follow the Geneva Convention guidelines should tell you something about what these procedures, when applied to detainees, could reasonably be concluded to be.
Well now, it all comes down to what one considers “torture”. In fact, the wussy Geneva Convention pretty blocks out everything except a chit chat over a game of chess with their prohibitions on murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” (not defined) as well as outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.
Doesn’t leave much, eh? But then, the Geneva Convention never envisioned for stateless thugs/idealogues and jihad.
Our intel would suffer tremendously, but if people like you get their way, I say shoot ’em on the battlefield and eliminate the debate.
mooseburger
13 years ago
Mata said: “Incorrect, Moose. The SERE training imprisons troops, puts them thru known coercive methods commonly used with the attempt to get them to sign papers and give up information. It’s not just a “here’s what it feels like”. The trainer/interrogators do indeed have the goal of breaking them for info.”
Point taken regarding the details of the training, Mata.
But, for the sake of argument lets take your position as complete and true, our troops get the full whack that any detainee gets, there is little if any distinction to be made between what we do to our own troop in training as we do to terrorist detainees. If we define treating detainees with the “enhanced interrogation methods” as torture, then we must define our training of our troops as torture as well. That it is absurd to suggest that we torture our own troops, so therefore since we don’t see the training as torture, we must also see the treatment of those detainees as not being torture. Do I understand your point of view correctly?
If your argument were taken a step further, then if other countries were to capture our troops or even civilian reporters on the scene and employ the same methods to get false confessions of war crimes, we shouldn’t be to worked up about it because this is just acceptable treatment, heck, we even do it to our own troops when we train them, so, no big deal? If they have doctors there, and monitor our guys so that their blood pressure, pulse rate, body core temperature, making sure the shackles holding them up for days so they can’t sleep don’t cut too deep into their skin, locked up in tight cramped spaces under controlled conditions for only a mere 8 hours or so at a time, keep them naked and humiliate them around a bunch of women in 68 degree temperature rooms…. as long as they follow the strict guidelines we established in the Bush DOJ memos, we should have no problem with that?
One other point Mata, You mentioned: “the wussy Geneva Convention pretty blocks out everything except a chit chat over a game of chess with their prohibitions on murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” (not defined) as well as outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.
Doesn’t leave much, eh? But then, the Geneva Convention never envisioned for stateless thugs/idealogues and jihad.”
This may be true enough, but, a very true principle applies, one that Conservatives typically embrace, and one that reasonable Americans do as well: If you have a law, treaty or rule, your enforce it. If it’s a bad law, bad treaty or bad rule, you change it or get rid of it. It’s never an acceptable defense at work, in a court of law, or as a Country to just say that’s a bad rule, so that’s why I did not abide by it. I will grant you that 911 was an extraordinary circumstance, one not considered when the convention was written. But the guiding principle of how we treat our prisoners we scoop up in war time should not be vastly different that what we expect for our troops that are captured. That is, unless you are still making the argument that our Troops training and detainees treatment is essentially the same, so, if our troops receive similar treatment upon capture, then that’s Ok too.
I’ll take your middle section first, Moose…. ala your “… then if other countries were to capture our troops or even civilian reporters on the scene and employ the same methods to get false confessions of war crimes, we shouldn’t be to worked up about it because this is just acceptable treatment…” comment
If??? I am suggesting that the SERE training… which is called “resistance” training, not “torture” training, BTW… prepares our troops for what they have met, and continue to meet, when captured and pressed for intel via coercion. We didn’t make this stuff up as the first offenders. It’s based on what our troops and civilian detainees have been subjected to in the past. This renders your point about us not being “worked up” or expecting essentially the same reciprocal treatment for our detainees as moot.
Being a signatory to the Geneva Convention all sounds well and good. But like Obama and his lofty rhetoric, it sure loses in translation to reality.
Take for example the detainees at Gitmo, where everyone is up in arms about not sending them back to their nations of origin because of risk of torture. These nations include Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Individual suspected terrorists have claimed they have been tortured at the hands of the Syrians (Maher Arar). Uzbekistan is another “high risk” country for torture.
Aside from that striking dichotomony, as Aqua points out on another thread, AQ and the jihad movements are not signatories. They aren’t even a standing state army. They are an international association of idealogues on the quest for territory and oppressive rule.
As we agree, the Geneva Convention did not envision stateless murderers/thugs who deliberately target citizens as part of their warfare. Thus it’s a one way street for them…. as detainees of a signatory state – and since the SCOTUS now wants to define them as POWs and not enemy combatants – they suddenly win the protections of the Convention merely because they are a citizen of a nation member.
BTW, I don’t know if you are aware of this, but according to the 1949 agreement, if a detainee is *not* a citizen of a member state, the protections do *not* apply. Wonder how SCOTUS missed this when considering they fight not as Saudis or Pakistanis, but jihad movements.
Conversely, when this enemy captures civilians or military personnel, they are not bound by it… nor would they recognize it if they were. They are not capturing their enemies as a state army, nor holding them in state facilities.
Then, outside of warfare, there is the treatment of US citizens when imprisoned in foreign jails. Mexico and Turkey come immediately to mind… both with many documented stories of “torture” while detained for breaking that nation’s laws, including being beaten to death. (that, I’ll concede easily, is “torture”). Many nations have severe penalties and harsh sentencing. Yet both the above countries? Also signatories to the Geneva Convention. Hundreds to thousands annually are detained in this condition/status. Where’s the outrage? Even if they broke laws, they are superior humans to terrorists and deserve more hand wringing than you give these scumbags.
What becomes apparent is, in reality, the only one who gets called out on Geneva Convention violations is the US. And only then, for a political agenda.
~~~
As far as “torture” and it’s definition, I think that’s as vague a term as the liberal/progressives see the phrase, “the war on terror”. We’ve already had enough discussions in these threads to note that something can be torturous to one, and not to another. i.e. 24/7 loud Brittany music, bugs, etc.
I tend to look at torture as something leaving physical disabilities. McCain’s lack of mobility from beatings. I also see the Geneva Convention as being absurdly restrictive.
“humiliation”? “degrading treatment”? puleeeeze. The Gitmo whiners include in their complaints “sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution”. Talk about taking PC to the nth degree.
My point INRE the SERE training is that you appear determined to call EITs “torture”. If you do that, you have to also say we “torture” our troops. There is no getting around that fact.
I don’t call it torture. Our soldiers endure this treatment with few, if any, lasting effects. And so do the detainees. If it works, and they aren’t permanently maimed and disfigured, I say go for it. Just stop taking photos for the NYTs and ACLU to use for their political agenda. This then puts us on a par with what most other countries already do, but just don’t advertise to their public for political fodder.
I don’t know if you are aware of this, but according to the 1949 agreement, if a detainee is *not* a citizen of a member state, the protections do *not* apply.
Other than perhaps Common Article 3, provisions of the GC as it relates to treatment of soldiers as POWs should not be extended to terrorists. To do so is to disrespect the GC as it would remove the incentive for fighting out in the open in uniform rather than to hide out amongst civilians and endanger them.
But of course they should not be entitled to either GC protection, nor US Constitutional rights, Word mon pal. But then, tell that to SCOTUS… The robed ones blundered thru, making stuff up as they go along to construe situations not considered by the GC or the framers. Until challenged again, their opinion is something we have to live with it as that’s the way our government was constructed.
Guess Obama will just have to stick to his Bagram/Gitmo. If he can keep his faithful distracted with other stuff, they’ll never notice Obama’s “new” Gitmo where detainees have no Constitutional rights.
Aqua
13 years ago
Moose, Mata said it perfectly. SERE isn’t where you sit in class and decide what you will and won’t participate in. I was very lucky during the evasion part and made it all the way to the safehouse. Some people get picked up the first day and have to spend a lot more time in camp. I made it to the last day of evasion and found the safehouse. Inside was a feast; hamburgers, hotdogs, mac -n- cheese. My buddy and I were getting ready to chow down and the Op Force came in, slapped us in restraints and off to camp we went. No feast for us. That was torture. I’ve never heard of anyone breaking out. We weren’t allowed to. Maybe it was a new rule they put in place after the Rangers broke out. An escape was going to the front gate and standing there. If you escaped, they were supposed to give you a peanut butter samich. I saw a couple of people make it to the gate, and they usually got to stand there for a few hours. Then the Op Force would beat the crap out of them and put them back in the box, no peanut butter samich.
The detainees in Gitmo have better healthcare than any of us do. They have meals served per their religious beliefs, prepared by chefs and muslim overseers to make sure it is in accordance with their beliefs. They are treated better than any other prisoners of war in the known world. Poor things get a waterboarding every once in a while, threatened to get thrown in a box with an insect. So what? If they didn’t want to suffer the consequences of war, they shouldn’t have started it. I think they should be tossed in a box with a coffee can, a cup of rice a day and some mystery meat twice a week. People that fight wars are warriors. Warriors know the cost of getting captured. Quit watching Hogan’s Heroes reruns.
I see… so “torture” is now defined by what the detainees do “voluntarily” as opposed to the act. So why don’t you tell us what the detainees will “agree” to in giving up intel info, Moose. Of course, it follows, that anything they don’t volunteer for is “torture”.
If our guys are subjected to it, and are not permanently harmed, it is not “torture” by any definition. If you want to name it so, take the consequences and Pandora’s box you open by the “voluntary” argument. i.e., they dont want MikeyD’s happy meals that night, or it’s torture. They don’t want to read this or that book because it’s available in the library , or it’s torture. They don’t want to be confined in their cell on a sunny day, or it’s torture.
Your willing suspension of disbelief INRE waterboarding/torture-only-if-involuntary is nothing less than absurd.
Moose. watching some of the Hollywood filth where the “stars” only talent is to Curse, sweat, take of their clothes, screw, wreck cars, blow up lots of stuff, and kill people in hideous ways is torture, I avoid that at all cost. I have been water boarded, it’s not pleasant, but it is not torture
Mata: The training our guys go thru was specifically designed to aid them in resisting torture interrogations that may be employed by an enemy who would not abide by the Geneva convention. The training was not designed to extract confessions or intel, but to train our troops in how to deal with a situation where torture was unlawfully applied.
Your statement: “I see… so “torture” is now defined by what the detainees do “voluntarily” as opposed to the act. So why don’t you tell us what the detainees will “agree” to in giving up intel info, Moose.”
This twists and blurs the distinction. I didn’t say or imply that detainees get to define what they will agree with in order to give up intel. The fact that this training is for the very purpose of resisting torture from an enemy who would not follow the Geneva Convention guidelines should tell you something about what these procedures, when applied to detainees, could reasonably be concluded to be.
If we use it our guys for training, it is not to extract info or obtain cooperation. If on the other hand, it was used on our guys as a punishment or during interrogation after arrest for a crime while they were in the Brig or something, then it does become quite another thing, does it not?
@Marion Valentine: Perhaps you could expand on your personal experience with waterboarding. Apparently, Mossy missed it when you mentioned it. Probably the kind of attention deficit thing we could expect from someone on a diet of road kill.
Mike, I was water boarded in 1959, didn’t think it was too big of a deal then, and don’t think it is now, not much more than kids playing around and ducking each other in the swimming pool, the only really uncomfortable thing I remember is being restrained, course i have never liked having my arms held or restrained in any way. Only 3 terrorists were water boarded, that’s a lot easier than they deserve, and since valuable Info was gotten with out any loss of limbs, organs, or internal injuries to the terrorists, all well and good.
@Marion Valentine: My neighbor teaches courses in counter terrorism and we were discussing the subject today. I was shocked at how ill-informed he was on the subject of waterboarding. He did not even know the basic facts of how many of these monsters were waterboarded. The only thing he did know is the left wing distorted talking point about the “180” waterboarding incidents. I had to inform him that referred to the number of times water was poured on the terrorists, not the number of sessions.
All these folks like Mossy get their information from “news” sources with a bias that is so glaring they can’t even present the basics of journalism 101 and answer the who, what, where, when, why or how.
It’s all manufactured mass hysteria based on willful ignorance designed to serve a defeatist, anti-American ideology.
Meanwhile, there is real trouble in the world that is not going away and we have all wasted weeks discussing something that Democrats previously agreed was a good idea.
When we are hit again and people ask why we didn’t find the information in time that could have prevented it, they will want to know why Dems wasted so much time on a non story. And why they handcuffed the very people who could have stopped it.
Yeah Mike like I said in a couple of my articles,,,this crap cam out, and will hold the peoples and the media attention for a few days, already something else to take it’s place, “Cap And Trade”, Global warming fraud, before that it was the union vote, all just smoke and mirrors, so folks won’t notice O and his cronies, getting control of Banking, businesses, production, and everything else, their only agenda is CONTROL.
What do you think the “created” crisis will be that will be the trigger for Obama to declare national martial law?
Complete collapse of the economy?
Biological Terrorist attack
Pandemic
or Famine
@Marion Valentine: I was just commenting on Wordsmith’s latest post on the release of photos supposedly showing harsh treatment of Iraqis:
Obama is playing lefty games and not doing his job.
Real problems are going unaddressed while he throws his bones to the lefties.
Speaking of pandemics, watch out for that outbreak in Mexico. If that hits here we may be living under martial law.
Mike, martial law is the nest step for Obama, mimicing the footsteps of his hero Hugo Chavez, over a year ago i wrote, “Can Obama pull off a Hugo Chavez, you can bet your assets”
Mike said: All these folks like Mossy get their information from “news” sources with a bias that is so glaring they can’t even present the basics of journalism 101 and answer the who, what, where, when, why or how.
I been gettin’ some of my news here too, Mke. I don’t make any claim to be a journalist. In my book, folks who at least care, get involved enough to try and be informed as best they can, and engage in discussion with even those they disagree with are a couple notches above folks who don’t get involved, don’t vote and don’t care. You should be able to admit, Mike, that glaring bias knows no party or ideology, Hannity is a case in point.
About releasing the photos of more harsh treatment, bad idea, as I mentioned this earlier in the thread. This will inflame Americans, Muslims, and stir up more crap than it will solve. For all the talk about Bush and Radical Islamic recruiting tools, releasing those photos goes against that argument.
About that waterboarding Marion, doesn’t sound much worse than kids playing around in the water…I wonder why the Bush DOJ spent all that time and effort into writing those lengthy memos on something that is no more of a big deal than that?
Yep I’m still waiting for a list of non-bias news sources….
@GaffaUK: So Gaffa, where did YOU learn about how many terrorists were waterboarded? I’m assuming you know the answer by now.
@mooseburger: Mossy, all those lawyers in the Bush Administration were doing their job. Which is more than I can say for Obama.
Meanwhile, I doubt any of you are really informed about what is happening in Pakistan.
Mike: Taliban has about taken over Pakistan.
All those lawyers had nothing better to do than write memos for splashin’ and dunkin’ and a bit of water fun? That sounds like fun too….
BTW..sorry for the bit off topic, but here’s some news that’s not from one of those shrill partisan sources, this comes from the horses mouth, the second in command on the boat the pirates seized the Captain from;
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/19273935/detail.html
@mooseburger: If you are going to be pointing fingers at the Bush Administration lawyers you need to ask why Obama is wasting all his time throwing bones to the left wing haters.
I’d rather see a roomful of lawyers twiddle their thumbs than a President sit by and watch while Pakistan burns.
Remember what happened in Iran? Oh, that reminds me… who was President when we lost Iran because we were too busy with a bunch of left wing foolishness?
Incorrect, Moose. The SERE training imprisons troops, puts them thru known coercive methods commonly used with the attempt to get them to sign papers and give up information. It’s not just a “here’s what it feels like”. The trainer/interrogators do indeed have the goal of breaking them for info.
From the link above I provided from a SERE training grad:
Odd that you don’t whine about other coercive methods they are also put thru.. just waterboarding. What if it were the steady drip of Chinese water torture? Forced nudity? Yet you continually fall back on your “voluntary” vs “involuntary” argument as the difference. Yet when I ask you what you may deem appropriate coercive methods that detainees may “volunteer” for, thereby making it “okay” in your opinion, you merely say:
Well now, it all comes down to what one considers “torture”. In fact, the wussy Geneva Convention pretty blocks out everything except a chit chat over a game of chess with their prohibitions on murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” (not defined) as well as outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.
Doesn’t leave much, eh? But then, the Geneva Convention never envisioned for stateless thugs/idealogues and jihad.
Our intel would suffer tremendously, but if people like you get their way, I say shoot ’em on the battlefield and eliminate the debate.
Mata said: “Incorrect, Moose. The SERE training imprisons troops, puts them thru known coercive methods commonly used with the attempt to get them to sign papers and give up information. It’s not just a “here’s what it feels like”. The trainer/interrogators do indeed have the goal of breaking them for info.”
Point taken regarding the details of the training, Mata.
But, for the sake of argument lets take your position as complete and true, our troops get the full whack that any detainee gets, there is little if any distinction to be made between what we do to our own troop in training as we do to terrorist detainees. If we define treating detainees with the “enhanced interrogation methods” as torture, then we must define our training of our troops as torture as well. That it is absurd to suggest that we torture our own troops, so therefore since we don’t see the training as torture, we must also see the treatment of those detainees as not being torture. Do I understand your point of view correctly?
If your argument were taken a step further, then if other countries were to capture our troops or even civilian reporters on the scene and employ the same methods to get false confessions of war crimes, we shouldn’t be to worked up about it because this is just acceptable treatment, heck, we even do it to our own troops when we train them, so, no big deal? If they have doctors there, and monitor our guys so that their blood pressure, pulse rate, body core temperature, making sure the shackles holding them up for days so they can’t sleep don’t cut too deep into their skin, locked up in tight cramped spaces under controlled conditions for only a mere 8 hours or so at a time, keep them naked and humiliate them around a bunch of women in 68 degree temperature rooms…. as long as they follow the strict guidelines we established in the Bush DOJ memos, we should have no problem with that?
One other point Mata, You mentioned: “the wussy Geneva Convention pretty blocks out everything except a chit chat over a game of chess with their prohibitions on murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” (not defined) as well as outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.
Doesn’t leave much, eh? But then, the Geneva Convention never envisioned for stateless thugs/idealogues and jihad.”
This may be true enough, but, a very true principle applies, one that Conservatives typically embrace, and one that reasonable Americans do as well: If you have a law, treaty or rule, your enforce it. If it’s a bad law, bad treaty or bad rule, you change it or get rid of it. It’s never an acceptable defense at work, in a court of law, or as a Country to just say that’s a bad rule, so that’s why I did not abide by it. I will grant you that 911 was an extraordinary circumstance, one not considered when the convention was written. But the guiding principle of how we treat our prisoners we scoop up in war time should not be vastly different that what we expect for our troops that are captured. That is, unless you are still making the argument that our Troops training and detainees treatment is essentially the same, so, if our troops receive similar treatment upon capture, then that’s Ok too.
I’ll take your middle section first, Moose…. ala your “… then if other countries were to capture our troops or even civilian reporters on the scene and employ the same methods to get false confessions of war crimes, we shouldn’t be to worked up about it because this is just acceptable treatment…” comment
If??? I am suggesting that the SERE training… which is called “resistance” training, not “torture” training, BTW… prepares our troops for what they have met, and continue to meet, when captured and pressed for intel via coercion. We didn’t make this stuff up as the first offenders. It’s based on what our troops and civilian detainees have been subjected to in the past. This renders your point about us not being “worked up” or expecting essentially the same reciprocal treatment for our detainees as moot.
Being a signatory to the Geneva Convention all sounds well and good. But like Obama and his lofty rhetoric, it sure loses in translation to reality.
Take for example the detainees at Gitmo, where everyone is up in arms about not sending them back to their nations of origin because of risk of torture. These nations include Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Individual suspected terrorists have claimed they have been tortured at the hands of the Syrians (Maher Arar). Uzbekistan is another “high risk” country for torture.
And what do all those above named countries have in common? Each are signatories to the Geneva Convention.
Aside from that striking dichotomony, as Aqua points out on another thread, AQ and the jihad movements are not signatories. They aren’t even a standing state army. They are an international association of idealogues on the quest for territory and oppressive rule.
As we agree, the Geneva Convention did not envision stateless murderers/thugs who deliberately target citizens as part of their warfare. Thus it’s a one way street for them…. as detainees of a signatory state – and since the SCOTUS now wants to define them as POWs and not enemy combatants – they suddenly win the protections of the Convention merely because they are a citizen of a nation member.
BTW, I don’t know if you are aware of this, but according to the 1949 agreement, if a detainee is *not* a citizen of a member state, the protections do *not* apply. Wonder how SCOTUS missed this when considering they fight not as Saudis or Pakistanis, but jihad movements.
Conversely, when this enemy captures civilians or military personnel, they are not bound by it… nor would they recognize it if they were. They are not capturing their enemies as a state army, nor holding them in state facilities.
Then, outside of warfare, there is the treatment of US citizens when imprisoned in foreign jails. Mexico and Turkey come immediately to mind… both with many documented stories of “torture” while detained for breaking that nation’s laws, including being beaten to death. (that, I’ll concede easily, is “torture”). Many nations have severe penalties and harsh sentencing. Yet both the above countries? Also signatories to the Geneva Convention. Hundreds to thousands annually are detained in this condition/status. Where’s the outrage? Even if they broke laws, they are superior humans to terrorists and deserve more hand wringing than you give these scumbags.
What becomes apparent is, in reality, the only one who gets called out on Geneva Convention violations is the US. And only then, for a political agenda.
As far as “torture” and it’s definition, I think that’s as vague a term as the liberal/progressives see the phrase, “the war on terror”. We’ve already had enough discussions in these threads to note that something can be torturous to one, and not to another. i.e. 24/7 loud Brittany music, bugs, etc.
I tend to look at torture as something leaving physical disabilities. McCain’s lack of mobility from beatings. I also see the Geneva Convention as being absurdly restrictive.
“humiliation”? “degrading treatment”? puleeeeze. The Gitmo whiners include in their complaints “sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution”. Talk about taking PC to the nth degree.
My point INRE the SERE training is that you appear determined to call EITs “torture”. If you do that, you have to also say we “torture” our troops. There is no getting around that fact.
I don’t call it torture. Our soldiers endure this treatment with few, if any, lasting effects. And so do the detainees. If it works, and they aren’t permanently maimed and disfigured, I say go for it. Just stop taking photos for the NYTs and ACLU to use for their political agenda. This then puts us on a par with what most other countries already do, but just don’t advertise to their public for political fodder.
Other than perhaps Common Article 3, provisions of the GC as it relates to treatment of soldiers as POWs should not be extended to terrorists. To do so is to disrespect the GC as it would remove the incentive for fighting out in the open in uniform rather than to hide out amongst civilians and endanger them.
But of course they should not be entitled to either GC protection, nor US Constitutional rights, Word mon pal. But then, tell that to SCOTUS… The robed ones blundered thru, making stuff up as they go along to construe situations not considered by the GC or the framers. Until challenged again, their opinion is something we have to live with it as that’s the way our government was constructed.
Guess Obama will just have to stick to his Bagram/Gitmo. If he can keep his faithful distracted with other stuff, they’ll never notice Obama’s “new” Gitmo where detainees have no Constitutional rights.
Moose, Mata said it perfectly. SERE isn’t where you sit in class and decide what you will and won’t participate in. I was very lucky during the evasion part and made it all the way to the safehouse. Some people get picked up the first day and have to spend a lot more time in camp. I made it to the last day of evasion and found the safehouse. Inside was a feast; hamburgers, hotdogs, mac -n- cheese. My buddy and I were getting ready to chow down and the Op Force came in, slapped us in restraints and off to camp we went. No feast for us. That was torture. I’ve never heard of anyone breaking out. We weren’t allowed to. Maybe it was a new rule they put in place after the Rangers broke out. An escape was going to the front gate and standing there. If you escaped, they were supposed to give you a peanut butter samich. I saw a couple of people make it to the gate, and they usually got to stand there for a few hours. Then the Op Force would beat the crap out of them and put them back in the box, no peanut butter samich.
The detainees in Gitmo have better healthcare than any of us do. They have meals served per their religious beliefs, prepared by chefs and muslim overseers to make sure it is in accordance with their beliefs. They are treated better than any other prisoners of war in the known world. Poor things get a waterboarding every once in a while, threatened to get thrown in a box with an insect. So what? If they didn’t want to suffer the consequences of war, they shouldn’t have started it. I think they should be tossed in a box with a coffee can, a cup of rice a day and some mystery meat twice a week. People that fight wars are warriors. Warriors know the cost of getting captured. Quit watching Hogan’s Heroes reruns.