Article

2004-06-14 Home Front: WoT

Interrogation abuses were 'approved at highest levels'

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-06-14 12:54:35 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I am heartily sick of the media garbling together what is legal (under US and international law) and what is moral. You can either act legally or you can act morally, but you can rarely do both at the same time. Of course the media is almost silent on the fact Arabs states routinely do neither.

Posted by phil_b 2004-06-14 1:52:49 AM|| 2004-06-14 1:52:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Let's see, repeat several million times that this is a Bush sanctioned scandal and, what do you know, the media's new Viet Nam.

Now, isn't the IRC required to work solely with the government? Not run to the nearest media outlet?

Posted by Capt America 2004-06-14 5:15:05 AM|| 2004-06-14 5:15:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Mission: The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance.

Posted by Capt America 2004-06-14 5:18:04 AM|| 2004-06-14 5:18:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#4
#1 garbling together what is legal ... and what is moral

This "garbling together" is done from both sides. I've read many Rantburger comments to the effect that certain prisoners are not covered by the Geneva Convention, and therefore there is no moral issue.

Beyond the considerations of legality and morality there is also the consideration of wisdom.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-14 8:22:05 AM|| 2004-06-14 8:22:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 You are right, Mike. That is why some of your posts in sympathy to prisoners held by the US ( aka enemies of the USA and of freedom ) in the WoT sound like so much political posturing.

You sound like a Kerry camp shill.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-14 8:31:52 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-14 8:31:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Rantbergers' comments? How about facts? Geneva covers those that play by the rules. I'd just as soon shoot any and all "insurgents" and jihadis right on the battlefield, if they don't have any intel to give up.

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-14 8:49:48 AM|| 2004-06-14 8:49:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Ah yes... Monday and the media is back to sodomizing the 'prisoner abuse' dead horse again I see.

It also looks like Congress is determined to micro-manage the WOT.

And when the Red Thingy starts 'leaking' memos to the press they violate their own impartialialy and neutralily and should no longer be treated as such. What the memo describes is not 'torture' in my book.

Posted by Anonymous5210 2004-06-14 9:13:12 AM|| 2004-06-14 9:13:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 "You sound like a Kerry camp shill."

Glad I'm not the only one who has noticed this ...

Posted by docob 2004-06-14 9:17:14 AM|| 2004-06-14 9:17:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 What does "use of dogs" mean? Dogs gnawing on prisoners, or dogs scaring the crap out of prisoners? It actually makes a difference...

Posted by Mitch H. 2004-06-14 9:40:09 AM|| [http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/] 2004-06-14 9:40:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Capt A, the Communist party's mission was to free the world's workers. What is your point?

As my mother used to say 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.'

Posted by Phil B 2004-06-14 9:50:16 AM|| 2004-06-14 9:50:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Glad I'm not the only one who has noticed this ...

You two are far from the only ones.

Mike:
I've read many Rantburger comments to the effect that certain prisoners are not covered by the Geneva Convention, and therefore there is no moral issue. Beyond the considerations of legality and morality there is also the consideration of wisdom.

It would be wiser to shoot unlawful combatants out of hand. Or to lock them into itty-bitty cages and hang them in front of mosques so their slow, agonizing deaths can be an example to others.

Terrorists have voluntarily removed themselves from the human race by their own actions. The moral course -- the one that protects the most innocents -- is to remove them from the world as swiftly as possible while making their fates a warning to others.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-14 10:12:43 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-06-14 10:12:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 I'd just as soon shoot any and all "insurgents" and jihadis right on the battlefield, if they don't have any intel to give up.

I'd be inclined to shoot any and all insurgents and jihadis even after they've given up whatever intel is usable. After all, what are the chances that an insurgent/jihadi is going to be successfully "reformed"? Not good, I would guess.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-14 10:31:53 AM|| 2004-06-14 10:31:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Now, do you know the difference between a "terrorist" and an "unlawful combatant"?

Because you seem to be using the terms interchangeably.

How do the (non-civilian) "Civilian contractors" fit in with the Geneva convention btw? The way I've understood it, and correct me if I'm wrong, they are "unlawful combatants" also, and thus not protected by it either.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-14 10:34:30 AM|| 2004-06-14 10:34:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Ummmm because they're there for security? How many IED's has the dreaded Halliburton set off? Brown and Root car bombs?

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-14 10:40:13 AM|| 2004-06-14 10:40:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Aris, the civilian contractors would be unlawful combatants if they carried weapons and used them to attack Iraqis. Most of the civilian contractors are just that. Contractors who are not involved in fighting. THe armed contractor guards are a different story. I'm not sure what status they would have as they are not involved in offensive operations, but are there for defensive purposes.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2004-06-14 10:47:43 AM|| 2004-06-14 10:47:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 Now, do you know the difference between a "terrorist" and an "unlawful combatant"? Because you seem to be using the terms interchangeably.

That's because they are, spanky.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-14 10:53:09 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-06-14 10:53:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Aris are you on vacation? You seem more prolix than usual.

Posted by Shipman 2004-06-14 10:54:11 AM|| 2004-06-14 10:54:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 That's because they are, spanky.

No, they are not. All terrorists are unlawful combatants, but not all "unlawful combatants" are terrorists.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-14 11:07:23 AM|| 2004-06-14 11:07:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 No, they are not. All terrorists are unlawful combatants, but not all "unlawful combatants" are terrorists.

Pardon me while I roll my eyes.

You may have noticed, Aris, that in recent conflicts the two sets have been congruent.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-14 11:14:58 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-06-14 11:14:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#20
I've read many Rantburger comments to the effect that certain prisoners are not covered by the Geneva Convention, and therefore there is no moral issue.

There's some good examples right here in this thread.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-14 11:22:30 AM|| 2004-06-14 11:22:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 I don't think the average American really cares what happens to these captives.

Posted by Anonymous5211 2004-06-14 11:30:06 AM|| 2004-06-14 11:30:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 Mike, perhaps you missed my point:

It is more moral for certain prisoners to be put to death than to risk them ever killing innocent people. We know that risk is high because those prisoners have ignored the most basic rules we expect of civilized people.

To me there is a moral issue. And the moral weight is on the side of "kill them before they kill".

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-14 11:30:11 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-06-14 11:30:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 You may have noticed, Aris, that in recent conflicts the two sets have been congruent.

Really?? So EVERY SINGLE PERSON that has been fighting out of uniform (unlawful combatant) has also been intentionally targetting civilians (terrorist)?

Where is your evidence for that?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-14 11:38:36 AM|| 2004-06-14 11:38:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#24
That is why some of your posts in sympathy to prisoners held by the US ( aka enemies of the USA and of freedom ) in the WoT sound like so much political posturing. You sound like a Kerry camp shill.

Glad I'm not the only one who has noticed this ...

You two are far from the only ones.

This article was posted by Steve White.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-14 11:56:11 AM|| 2004-06-14 11:56:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 I'll have to agree with Aris on this. Not all unlawful combatants are terroists. The Dutch Resistance is an example. They targeted German Military targets, not civilians, yet were not "lawful combatants" covered under the Geneva Convention. They certainly weren't terrorists.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2004-06-14 11:57:40 AM|| 2004-06-14 11:57:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 In fact they were "guerillas", Deacon. Target selection makes all the difference.

But that didn't stop the Germans from shooting tham when they caught them.

Posted by mojo 2004-06-14 12:04:59 PM|| 2004-06-14 12:04:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 For the purposes of the prison "scandal" the differentiation between unlawful combatant and terrorist does not matter. This is all in reference to how the individuals fighting out of uniform are being treated. They are all unlawful combatants and that is the only salient point. Because of this the rules of the Geneva Convention do not apply. End of story.

Posted by remote man 2004-06-14 12:16:45 PM|| 2004-06-14 12:16:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 mojo: My point exactly. They were not accorded protection under the Geneva Convention because they were not uniformed military. Generals Eisenhower and McArthur issued orders that any "resistance" or "guerillas" would be executed in Germany and Japan. I think the same should apply in Iraq.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2004-06-14 12:24:35 PM|| 2004-06-14 12:24:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#29
#22. Robert, I agree with you about executing terrorists. My concern is that we seem to be mistreating quite a few prisoners who aren't terrorists.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-14 12:28:23 PM|| 2004-06-14 12:28:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Mistreating prisoners (photos, threats of dogs & electrical shock, beatings)

versus

Death by torture (meatgrinders, sawing people's heads off, eviscerating and displaying corpses for political purposes)

Does anyone recognize the meaning and value of 'PRIORITY' anymore?

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-14 12:50:02 PM|| 2004-06-14 12:50:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 remote man> "They are all unlawful combatants and that is the only salient point. Because of this the rules of the Geneva Convention do not apply. End of story."

No, it's NOT the end of the story, exactly because legality and morality are two different issues.

Robert tried to make the two sets (unlawful combatants and terrorists) be synonymous, so as
to support his position that ÃLL these people have "have ignored the most basic rules we expect of civilized people", and therefore they should all suffer slow agonizing deaths locked in itty-bitty cases, hanged infront of a mosque so that their tortuous ends be used for political purposes.

For the crime of not actually being terrorists or killing civilians, but of fighting outside of uniform -- which therefore makes them "unlawful combatants".

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-14 12:58:18 PM|| 2004-06-14 12:58:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Aris-if you would

1.) Name which conventions you believe should apply to unlawful combatants and which should apply to terrorists

2.) Define which interrogation methods you would allow to prevent attacks on coalition forces.

Thanks

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-14 1:10:27 PM|| 2004-06-14 1:10:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 The inquiry will be led by Vice-Adml Albert Church, ..."This is not going to be a whitewash," said the Pentagon adviser. "The administration is finally realising how damaging this scandal could become."
Shouldn't that be how damaging the press is hoping it will become?

Let's see here, a Vice Admiral is going to investigate it, and all agree it's not going to be a white-wash .....so the conclusion we should draw from this (according to this article) is that the White House is scared about the revelations???

If it's a Vice Admiral doing it- and it's understood in the Pentagon that it is not going to be a white-wash - then it sounds to me like it's the White House driving the investigation, rather than running away from it.

How do we know - because if the Vice Admiral was a renegade, out to prove the truth at the risk of his own career, the press would be all over that angle. But the press...just...can't..bring...themselves...to... admit that White-House Administration is not asking for a white-wash, so they make up, out of thin air, the claim that Bush is ooooohhh....so scared of the results of the investigation that he ordered.

Posted by B 2004-06-14 1:36:47 PM|| 2004-06-14 1:36:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Jules>

1) Name which conventions you believe should apply to unlawful combatants and which should apply to terrorists

Criminal law.

Which means, putting them through a courtroom process with judge and jury and the right of a defense.

Once they've been convicted of this, then do to them as American law says you are allowed to do to people who've done this crimes. If that's the death penalty, then so be it. I oppose the death penalty personally, but there exist worse things than it in the world-- such as treating people as guilty based on mere suspicion.

But until then they are innocent until proven guilty.

2) Define which interrogation methods you would allow to prevent attacks on coalition forces.

On convicted terrorists, on suspected terrorists, on innocent civilians who may have relatives as jihadis, or on eight-year old children who may have simply happened to have overheard something?

It's a somewhat different question based on the scenario, right?

Why don't *you* define what interrogation methods you would allow to be used on civilians who *may* simply know something incriminating that a relative of theirs did/is planning to do? Or then again they may not.

How about on the 8-year old?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-14 1:45:40 PM|| 2004-06-14 1:45:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 criminal law? Fuck em - they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. Kill them on the spot and we won't need to argue this anymore

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-14 1:53:11 PM|| 2004-06-14 1:53:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Sure, and then you'd be evil and living under a dictatorship that can kill its own citizens by merely *suspecting* them of terrorism.

Oh no, American soldiers/police officers would *never* make a mistake and believe as terrorist someone who isn't.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-14 2:03:44 PM|| 2004-06-14 2:03:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Why don't *you* define what interrogation methods you would allow to be used on civilians who *may* simply know something incriminating that a relative of theirs did/is planning to do? Or then again they may not. How about on the 8-year old

Baby talk okay with you, Aris?

Posted by badanov 2004-06-14 2:21:45 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-14 2:21:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 I consider being subjected to Aris' twisted logic to be intolerable torture.

Posted by B 2004-06-14 2:28:26 PM|| 2004-06-14 2:28:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 badanov, B>

Ah the ad hominem. You hurt me. Really.

Come on people, answer the question. What kind of interrogation techniques would you allow your soldiers to use on a child that may or may not know something?

What kind of interrogation techniques would you allow to be used on an innocent citizen, who again may or may not know something?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-14 2:41:11 PM|| 2004-06-14 2:41:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 badanov, B>

Ah the ad hominem. You hurt me. Really.

Come on people, answer the question. What kind of interrogation techniques would you allow your soldiers to use on a child that may or may not know something?

What kind of interrogation techniques would you allow to be used on an innocent citizen, who again may or may not know something?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-14 2:41:12 PM|| 2004-06-14 2:41:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Aris - the geneva convention states anyone caught on the field of battle not in uniform and carrying a weapon as unlawful combatants. so if a terroist is caught on the battlefield with a weapon then that person is unlawful and can be executed on the spot. do not try and confuse with symantics.

same applys to soldiers of countries who have signed the geneva convention who are caught in the uniforms of thier enemy. they are unlawful and can be executed.

so in this respect the US has applied the moral side of the story. we have not executed these unlawful combatants on the battle field but have held them. they have no rights under any conventions signed. and the last time i heard al-queda is not a signator to the geneva convention.

your logic as usual is twisted and formulated to suit your prevailing views on the post.

Posted by Dan 2004-06-14 2:46:40 PM|| 2004-06-14 2:46:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 WTF is wrong with you, Aris? The ideal thing to do is what is done. You brief soldiers on what they cannot do, and nothing more. Let them figure out the rest. If they step out of line, you discipline the soldiers.

But what you don't do is to make rules governing specific behavior.

And Aris, the eight year old is covered in the Laws of War. The fact they are children does not exempt them from the rules of war. And if a child is caught up in a war, the responsibility rests with the side allowing the child to participate, not with the other side. This is black letter international law. All sides in any conflict has the inherent right to self defense.

If an eight year old has a loaded rifle, he/she gets once chance to put it down or be fired on.

It sucks to be the child if adults make him/her participate in war or in guerrilla warfare, and she/he suffers the consequences.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-14 2:50:59 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-14 2:50:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 It wasn't a smart ass question--I was asking for your ideas. I actually agree with you on the first part--charge them and give them a trial or let them go, within the time prescribed by law. However, I most faithfully agree with the death penalty should the detainees be proven guilty. They deserve a severe sentence for seeking the destruction of my country.

As far as interrogation methods, here is what I (someone with no military background) would say: Let's hope the film was rolling on everything that happened. That would include crimes by both guards and prisoners.

1.) IF prisoners were sodomized during capture, the US is in big doodoo and rightly so. If they were beaten, the fault may lie with rabid prisoners bent on jihad to their last breath or overzealous guards attempting to establish dominance or get revenge. Personally, I would attribute the best of motives to most troops. Would you?

Add to the list of inappropriate treatment: threatening electric shock. I am not sure whether the use of dogs was appropriate or not.

2.) Now, this Abu Ghraib situation-in my view, it is completely overblown and I have full confidence that some are using it not because they believe what they are saying but because it serves their political purposes. In the grand scale of human injustice, this is surely at the bottom of the pile when you have things like ethnic cleansing (rape, mutilation, burning people to death), REAL torture (like cutting off people's lips, putting them feet first in meatgrinders, throwing acid in someone's face), and starvation in captivity, to name but a few. The reason these debates get so heated, I think at least from this side, is that we are stunned that you focus on Abu Ghraib when the worst of what happened there is nothing compared with unexaggerated things that happen everyday around the world. Personally, I would rather focus on the big crimes first. That is what the police do--they don't devote all their energy and outrage on the hazings at the school down the street-they focus on the corpses hanging from the bridge.

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-14 2:51:17 PM|| 2004-06-14 2:51:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Dan> There existed wars before a Geneva convention was signed you know. There existed prisoners of war before a Geneva convention was signed.

Someone doing all these things you mentioned isn't under the protection of the Geneva convention. So what? That doesn't mean he "deserves" to be murdered as people have said, that doesn't mean he deserves to be tortured as people have said, that doesn't mean he deserves to suffer a slow agnozing death locked in a itty-bitty-cage hanged infront of a mosque, as people have said.

It only means that the Geneva convention isn't protecting him.

Can you even UNDERSTAND the difference between "he deserves to be slowly tortured to death" and "the Geneva convention isn't protecting him"? Can you even UNDERSTAND what I'm talking about?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-14 2:56:55 PM|| 2004-06-14 2:56:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 I see I forgot to address interrogation methods directly. I have seen it reported that torturous methods are generally not very effective in that a person will say anything, including wild fabrications, to make the pain stop. However, equally repulsive to me is coddling people who think torture is fun, murder and rape are ok, and destruction of the US is a good idea. I guess with some creativity we can find other ways of convincing people to spill the beans. But overprotection of prisoners will only doom good servicemen and citizens to more suffering.

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-14 3:00:35 PM|| 2004-06-14 3:00:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 And Aris, the eight year old is covered in the Laws of War. The fact they are children does not exempt them from the rules of war. And if a child is caught up in a war, the responsibility rests with the side allowing the child to participate, not with the other side.

Yep. Sending kids to war is a war crime; the fate of the children is the responsibility of those committing the crime, not the other side.

I just wish Aris would answer his own question. It seems to me he's demanding an answer while leaving his own position open -- that way he can jump whatever way he wants to make everyone else look bad.

Robert tried to make the two sets (unlawful combatants and terrorists) be synonymous, so as to support his position that ÃLL these people have "have ignored the most basic rules we expect of civilized people", and therefore they should all suffer slow agonizing deaths locked in itty-bitty cases, hanged infront of a mosque so that their tortuous ends be used for political purposes. For the crime of not actually being terrorists or killing civilians, but of fighting outside of uniform -- which therefore makes them "unlawful combatants".

Why, yes, Aris. I'm not sure why you consider saving the lives of innocents a "political purpose", but there it is.

See, Aris, the reason the GC (at least, the parts the US has signed on to) equates combatants out of uniform to those who intentionally attack civilians is because hiding as a civilian increases the probability that the other side will strike at civilians. That's also why putting military forces in civilian areas is against the Geneva Conventions.

There is no legal difference -- and IMHO, no moral difference -- between a terrorist and an unlawful combatant. Both have placed themselves outside of the law; neither are entitled to the law's protection.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-14 3:07:28 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-06-14 3:07:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 Can you even UNDERSTAND the difference between "he deserves to be slowly tortured to death" and "the Geneva convention isn't protecting him"? Can you even UNDERSTAND what I'm talking about?

I understand the two concepts are basically irrelevant. If we hold illegal combatants, then we own them, from the top of their shaved heads, to the bottom of their feet and legally, there is nothing anyone can do about it. They can talk and tell us what we need to know to better protect us and our allies, or they can clam up. In any case, we own them and they know it.

Don't think for one second we do not consider this a war for the very survival of our civilization, and if some hair gets mussed, or a liberal starts crying because one of their allies is lead about on a dog leash, then that is a sacrifice our enemy must make.

And as the story indicates, I expect nothing less than a all or nothing policy with regard to illegal combatants.

And Aris, I am sorry if your friends who are bombing and murdering in Iraq gets hurt. Sucks to be you, I guess.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-14 3:11:10 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-14 3:11:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 Can you even UNDERSTAND the difference between "he deserves to be slowly tortured to death" and "the Geneva convention isn't protecting him"? Can you even UNDERSTAND what I'm talking about?

Certainly, I understand what you're talking about.

What you're ignoring is that killing an unlawful combatant -- cruelly or quickly -- can save a hell of a lot more lives than it costs. This is the logic that underpins the Geneva Convention's definition of who is a "lawful combatant" and who is not.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-14 3:12:29 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-06-14 3:12:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Aris - Yes i do understand the difference. Your logic on the morality of the situation is realy irrelevant. Our enemies have no morality, they will kill you on the spot. Remember that Green Beret who fell out of his helo in Afganistan two years ago? Was he afforded any protections? No the dogs butchered him on the spot! But then again they are not signators to the Geneva convention so they our not bound to protect enemy combatants just as we are not bound to protect the these islamofacists.

Do you understand this is war? Were not putting on kid gloves here. You kill our people, you enter into battle as a combatant then you choose your own fate. Do not try and give morality lessons. The Geneva convention was created to govern the rules of war (and Greece is a signator)between nations, not organizations on the fringe.

Now i know you are going to comment about abu-ghard. Were the prisoners captured on the battlefield as an organzid army, under a country that has signed the convention? I do not think so. Still I would rather have my underwear on my head than my head cut off!

that doesn't mean he deserves to be tortured as people have said, that doesn't mean he deserves to suffer a slow agnozing death locked in a itty-bitty-cage hanged infront of a mosque,
regardless of what people would like to happen this is not happenning so it is a mute point, period. Stop harping on it and try and agrue factual events.

Posted by Dan 2004-06-14 3:41:34 PM|| 2004-06-14 3:41:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 Yep. Sending kids to war is a war crime; the fate of the children is the responsibility of those committing the crime, not the other side

Too bad I didn't say anything about children that were sent to war. I spoke about children that might have overheard something. I spoke about innocents.

Torture them to spill their guts or don't? Come on people, there are American lives that can be saved if you torture the eight year old that saw to which house a certain terrorist fled to, or that might have overheard his jihadi parents talk about future attacks.

What you're ignoring is that killing an unlawful combatant -- cruelly or quickly -- can save a hell of a lot more lives than it costs.

I haven't seen any reason to believe that it would save such lives, even if it was about actual unlawful combatants, not simply "suspected ones" that were talking about.

And ofcourse the other little matter most of you are evading is that these people are often simply "suspected" of being terrorists/unlawful combatants. Aka not guilty. Aka possibly innocent. Aka possibly *you* or *your son* or *your daughter*.

If you let your government treat them as guilty based on mere suspicion, perhaps you deserve of being suspected of such terrorism yourself.

But I guess that Christian American boys will probably be treated better than Iraqi Muslim ones, even when suspected of terrorism.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-14 3:58:03 PM|| 2004-06-14 3:58:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Aris-it is good to make sure that humans act humanely in the 21st century. This is reasonable. What is not reasonable is your hostility towards Americans and your scoffing at our basic sense of right and wrong-we do not torture 8 year olds, we do not treat Muslim prisoners worse than Christian ones. If America disappeared off the face of the earth, you'd have to find a new cause and the world WOULD be worse off.

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-14 4:06:55 PM|| 2004-06-14 4:06:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 C'mon, Aris, answer your own question first. What would you do?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-14 4:10:58 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-06-14 4:10:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Robert> I wouldn't torture anyone who's merely "suspected" of terrorism, and I would definitely not torture an innocent, regardless of age, regardless of how crucial information he/she may be carrying. And I wouldn't torture people who's only violation of the rules of war was that they weren't wearing uniforms either.

The torture of *definite* civilian-killing terrorists that *definitely* have information that would save dozens/hundreds/thousands of lives, I wouldn't mind so much.

So, here you go, I answered you. Now your turn.

jules> If America disappeared off the face of the earth,

If America disappeared off the face of the world, the world would indeed be worse off, and that's something I've stated repeatedly, in this forum also.

My contempt and hostility is directed towards a large number of people here, not Americans as a whole, or even as majority, or even as large percentage. Only those few ones who feel that torture towards suspects is okay.

As for whether Muslim prisoners are treated worse than Christian ones, in cases of terrorism atleast they seem to me to be -- Timothy McVeigh and his associate-whose-name-I'm forgetting was afforded a trial, right? He wasn't threatened/attacked by dogs, he wasn't photographed in sexual pyramids. He was allowed the right of a trial.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-14 4:29:42 PM|| 2004-06-14 4:29:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 But I guess that Christian American boys will probably be treated better than Iraqi Muslim ones, even when suspected of terrorism

well that traitor Lindh was not treated so well on the battlefield from what i have read..

Aris - you are just ant-american and you are blinded in your hatred.
Give some examples of when an 8 year old was tortured by americans? Sure could come up a few from africa and the former yugo..but then again it is not americans so you are not concerned! I never see you post on articles regarding Sudan? Is this because it is ok to murder, mame, rape, enslave just as long it is not americans putting underwear on your head?

If you let your government treat them as guilty based on mere suspicion, perhaps you deserve of being suspected of such terrorism yourself
If I allowed myself to be associated with terrorists than yes I do deserve the full force of my govt down on my ass..get real will you.

Explain the difference between suspected and actual unlawful combatants? You talk as if the US govt is just going around and randomly picking people for interrogation. If this was true I would hope they'd find you....To be suspected you've done something....

Posted by Dan 2004-06-14 4:36:43 PM|| 2004-06-14 4:36:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 I never see you post on articles regarding Sudan?

That's probably because I tend to object only to posts that I actually object to, and rarely feel useful in supporting posts where everyone is in agreement.

Oh, Sudan is pretty awful. Yeah Sudan is indeed pretty awful. Gee, Sudan keeps on being pretty awful. Everyone in agreement that Sudan is pretty awful? Jolly good, then.

I comment on articles on Syria, but then again that's because I felt they should be the ones to have been attacked rather than Iraq -- unlike pretty much everyone else here. I comment on Russia, but that's because I feel few see Putin for what he is, and Rafael worships him. I object to posts that actually are *objectionable* to me.

To be suspected you've done something....

Yeah, like be the neighbour to an actual terrorist. Or be in the general location when a bomb goes off.

And Lindh was a Muslim btw, AFAIK.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-14 4:50:13 PM|| 2004-06-14 4:50:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 As for whether Muslim prisoners are treated worse than Christian ones, in cases of terrorism atleast they seem to me to be

This is revealing....based on what? Do you not imagine that your opinions of Americans are being skewed by (liberal) media or the current vogue of blaming America? It is this fixation on Americans as the people most needing of censure that makes Americans conclude that you are being anti-American...why would we be so disposed to torture...is that our history? What justifies such a judgment of Americans?

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-14 4:50:49 PM|| 2004-06-14 4:50:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 First of all you ask "based on what". I already told you that -- based on the case of a Christian terrorist/mass murderer who nonetheless I haven't heard being tortured/photographed in sexual positions. And if I may add a second point based on human nature as well, who is more likely to treat better the people that it sees as "us", especially if you keep it unrestrained.

Secondly you keep on assuming things about me. If there weren't people here that defended torture, then I wouldn't have any reason to attack them. You talk about some fixation of mine on Americans as the people most in need of censure. But "American" just happens to be the nationality of the specific people that supported these things in this forum.

It's you who sees nationality as an issue, not me. In a recent thread, I didn't have any problem with bashing Polish-Canadian Rafael for defending the criminal actions of Russian Putin, the same way that I don't have any problems of bashing e.g. American Robert for defending the criminal actions of other Americans.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-14 5:07:52 PM|| 2004-06-14 5:07:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 Aris - Your a hypocrite. You are so moral when Americans are involved but ONLY when Americans are involved. Everything else is petty and not deserving of your attention? Like I said your a hyporcrite.

Syria is minor when compared with iraq and iran. Take out the rest and the syrians fall in line...
And if you feel that Syria should of been the target what are you doing to convince your countrymen?

Well Lindh is/was American. You really do not understand Americans. It does not matter what religion - if your a terrorist your a terrorists..and how does being a neighbor of a terorists make you guilty? Maybe in Greece but here you would have do a little more..like having conversations with your neigbor recorded by the NSA plotting something...the use of code words in your conversations..if you give cause then that is your own fault...but the majority of Americans do not need to worry about terrorists next door..in Greece you would though..your in the middle of the bullshit...like i said get real.

Posted by Dan 2004-06-14 5:13:04 PM|| 2004-06-14 5:13:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 I have assumed nothing about you. Your comments are the only way you can reveal yourself and how you think to others.

I don't give a hoot for commenters' nationality-only their ideas.

Maybe we'll agree later on other topics.

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-14 5:19:31 PM|| 2004-06-14 5:19:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 That should be "abuses," in quotes.

And who gives a shit?

When we start beheading people while they're still alive and conscious, and making a tape of it to show the world, call me and we'll chat.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-06-14 6:14:26 PM|| 2004-06-14 6:14:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 Aris - Your a hypocrite. You are so moral when Americans are involved but ONLY when Americans are involved.

Didn't I just mention a recent thread of mine with a Polish-Canadian about a Russian?

Syria is minor when compared with iraq and iran.

No, it's not. It's the base of Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, the occupying power of Lebanon, the chief supporter of Palestinian terrorism. *Iraq* was minor, compared to Syria. Syria is about ten times more important than Iraq in the support of regional and global terrorism.

And if you feel that Syria should of been the target what are you doing to convince your countrymen?

To convince my countrymen that Greece should invade Syria? We don't have the power. To convince my countrymen that *America* should have invaded Syria? I'm still at the point when I'm trying to convince them that America isn't doing all this for the oil and that Islamofascism is a real problem. And that the invasion of Iraq wasn't *morally* wrong, just bloody bloody stupid.

If I ever convince them of all this, *then* I'll start discussing choice of targets with them. Priorities, people. Priorities.

and how does being a neighbor of a terorists make you guilty?

It only makes you a "suspect" when you happen to be an Iraqi. And ofcourse suspects are already guilty according to you.

Why do you even bother with trials of American citizens btw?

but the majority of Americans do not need to worry about terrorists next door.

Yeah, only the Iraqis need to worry about that. We're still discussing about suspected Iraqis being captured and (according to Frank's suggestion for example) summarily executed so that you avoid the trouble of telling the guilty from the innocent, aren't we?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-14 6:23:14 PM|| 2004-06-14 6:23:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 LOL!
But I guess that Christian American boys will probably be treated better than Iraqi Muslim ones, even when suspected of terrorism.

Yep! You win Aris! If they are white they will be treated even better and if they have a decent swing they may be invited to Augusta. It's our way. ;)
We sneeze world gets a cold. Sorry.

Posted by Shipman 2004-06-14 6:35:40 PM|| 2004-06-14 6:35:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 LOL again... meaning that's a feature Aris not a bug.

Posted by Shipman 2004-06-14 6:42:28 PM|| 2004-06-14 6:42:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 Remember, kids. You must be this high to approve interrogation abuses...

Posted by tu3031 2004-06-14 7:07:50 PM|| 2004-06-14 7:07:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 Aris - where are the strings pulled for the terrorist organizations based in syria/lebannon? Iran - Bush has set us up nicely to take care of Iran. Now if we had gone straight into Iran you and the rest of bleeding hearts out there would be up in arms. Just take a step back and analyze where we are. If you trully want to take care of Syria you would see this. There is a master plan and it is being put into place.
And if this is for oil all I have to say where's the money? get a grip will you.

It was Iraq that had 17 UN resolutions - not syria or iran. Iran will be dealt with then Syria will either wither and abandon it's current quests (no dissagreements there with you - did i say that)..or have to deal with war. Hell without iran israelis could deal with syria without fear of a nuclear war.

now that is funny iraq minor compared to syria...

you really do not know which way your going.... we either deal with all islamofacist/bathist terrorism/antagnoism or walk away.
If we walk get your tribute ready!

oh your so concerned with the poor iraqis....the US is doing more for the iraqi's than all of Europe has done in decades.

too much bandwith wasted on you..

Posted by Dan 2004-06-14 7:42:23 PM|| 2004-06-14 7:42:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 There is a master plan and it is being put into place.

Yeah, I once thought there had been a "master plan" also. I then saw that one didn't infact exist on the US side. It did perhaps exist on the Iranian side who may have very well tricked you into invading Iraq so that all your forces were tied up and you wouldn't be able to bother them.

Iran will be dealt with

You are just hoping. I had once been hoping also, and my hopes proved false. Iran will unfortunately not be dealt with. US chose to deal with Iraq instead and it doesn't have the available power to deal with both at the same time.

It was Iraq that had 17 UN resolutions - not syria or iran

Do you know what the words "UN resolutions" mean? It means that Russia and China didn't oppose them being passed, that's what it means.

In short UN resolutions are *worse* than meaningless most of the time -- they signify that two criminal imperialistic superpowers don't have any objection towards them.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-14 8:04:51 PM|| 2004-06-14 8:04:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#67

In short UN resolutions are *worse* than meaningless

Dang, Aris! At last we can agree on something.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-06-14 9:47:05 PM|| 2004-06-14 9:47:05 PM|| Front Page Top

02:07 Zenster
01:11 Old Grouch
00:22 .com
00:21 .com
00:16 Darth VAda
00:10 Mark Espinola
00:02 Yank
23:59 Quana
23:56 joe
23:54 Pappy
23:46 Long Hair Republican
23:35 Pappy
23:35 Atomic Conspiracy
23:32 Mark Espinola
23:31 Alaska Paul
23:24 A Jackson
23:16 Pappy
23:14 Alaska Paul
23:12 Pappy
23:11 Alaska Paul
23:00 Alaska Paul
22:56 Rafael
22:54 JDB
22:48 Gromky