PDA

View Full Version : RIP Habeas Corpus, Hello Torture


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Neil Mick
10-01-2006, 04:35 PM
Quick: do you know what Habeas Corpus is?

If you don't: you have our media to thank, for your ignorance. Congress just passed a bill that guts Habeas Corpus, for noncitizens.

So, what's Habeas Corpus? It means to "present the body." It's the foundation of our laws, as far back as the Magna Carta. It gives you the right to demand a trial, when accused of something. This new bill takes that right away, for non-US citizens.

Worse, the bill allows the use of several forms of torture...oh, whoops! excuse me: I mean "coercion" :disgust: ...to be used as evidence at the trial.

Numb to Torture (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0930-25.htm)

So here is the bitter joke: (Lynndie) England, the public emblem of torture, was convicted for nothing so awful as what the president and his flank have chosen to protect. Her crime was to smile, to pose, to jeer at naked, powerless men, and to fail to stop their humiliations or to report them afterward. She did not shackle men in stress positions, strip them of their clothes, deny them sleep, force them to stand for hours or days, douse them with icy water, deprive them of heat or food or subject them to incessant noise or screaming.

(all legal, in this new bill).

So, Bush could point to anyone in the world...even a person legally living in the US...call them an "enemy combatant;" toss them in jail; use torture to extract a confession; have secret trials where the accused cannot see their accusers...all in secret, and its all good with the US Congress. :disgust: :disgust:

Incredible. :(

An Uncivilized People (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1001-30.htm)

There are laws that represent an Enlightened Age and, conversely, there are laws that represent a Dark Age. Today, our Congress has abolished, in Molly Ivins’ words, “a safeguard against illegal imprisonment that has endured as a cornerstone of legal justice since the Magna Carta,” and replaced it with barbaric laws. With a single vote, they’ve done away with a humane, civil right: the right to know what charges detainees’ have been accused of and the detainees’ right to challenge those accusations in a court of law. The traditional saying is every person has a right to a trial, a right to confront his/her accuser and to challenge the accusations. It is a profound safeguard to protect the innocent.

These humane laws that characterize a civilized nation have been usurped by a medieval oligarch: According to the new archaic law, George W. Bush determines the final fate of detainees, many of whom were innocent Afghani farmers, caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. That fate is cruel and unusual. No presumption of innocence. The punishment is either life in prison or death.

What's really amazing is the mainstream media's ho-hum approach to this debacle. I saw a story about it buried on page A-6 in the Sentinel: a measley 2-column piece that didn't do justice to the issue, on Friday.

Sure, the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html?_r=1&oref=login) put out an editorial damning the bill in strong language: but it was too little, too late.

These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture

The editorial came out on 9/28, and this bill has been in committee for months. Why was the NYT asleep at the wheel, for all this time?

Let's face it: torture doesn't work. Assuming it achieves a short term goal, you're still, at the end of the day, a torturer, using the same tools of terror on the tortured, as terrorists use upon civilians. Worse, you might well be torturing innocents:

Democracy the Big Loser (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0930-21.htm)

As both military attorneys and civilian pro bono attorneys for those imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have declared-the vast majority of the nearly 700 "detainees" were innocent from the get-go, victims of bounty hunters in Afghanistan and neighboring countries who "sold" them for cash to intermediaries who turned them over to the U.S. military for transfer to Cuba. All these "catches" made George W. Bush look like he was really rounding up all those evil terrorists - like cab drivers, British tourists of Pakistani descent and so forth.

Timed for the November elections, Bush moves on Congress, complete with his minions there issuing McCarthyite press releases accusing opposing Democrats, in the words of House Speaker, Dennis Hastert (R - Ill.), of voting "in favor of MORE rights for terrorists." (His emphasis)

So, why is BushCo so hot about legalizing an ineffective and amoral policy-tool? It has little to do with "helping him win the war on terror," and more to do with legalizing what he's already done. When the world hears the full details of what has been done to the detainee's: a lot of BushCo-types will be liable for prosecution of war-crimes. They are very nervous of that happening, with good reason. Again, it's lucky for W that he doesn't like to travel, much: after 2008, he won't have many safe places to go, where he won't be a wanted criminal.

In the meantime, the Supreme Court will likely quash this travesty (I hope), but that will take years, while BushCo gets to torture with impunity.

So AFAIC, democracy is dead, in the US. Goodbye freedom: hello secret trials.

Thoughts?

dps
10-01-2006, 05:03 PM
You do what you have to to keep the people who want to kill you from doing so.

Neil Mick
10-01-2006, 06:51 PM
You do what you have to to keep the people who want to kill you from doing so.

And to hell with the innocents, right?

How very convenient a philosophy, for you.

dps
10-01-2006, 07:05 PM
And to hell with the innocents, right? No I grieve for the innocents that the terrorists have killed.

gdandscompserv
10-01-2006, 07:44 PM
No I grieve for the innocents that the terrorists have killed.
It wasn't but a couple hundred years ago that Americans were terrorists...You do remember the revolution don't you.

dps
10-01-2006, 07:52 PM
It wasn't but a couple hundred years ago that Americans were terrorists...You do remember the revolution don't you.Not personally, I'm not that old.

Neil Mick
10-01-2006, 07:57 PM
No I grieve for the innocents that the terrorists have killed.

Great. Grieve for the innocents, that the terrorists have killed.

Ignore the innocents that we continue to allow to die (now, what kind of strange morality-system is that??)

No oversight, no question, not even any knowledge, that it is going on, of the process of how people are accused of being terrorists. We just let people disapper, merely because our oh-so-factually-correct President (*cough*) deems some Asian-lookin' fellas to be "enemy combatants."

But that's all OK with you, I guess...because you're off in a corner, "grieving" for the other victims.

In the meantime, I'm sure that this "brave" new piece of legislation will help our credibility in the ever-present "war on terror," right? :rolleyes: Not to mention, it's GOTTA make a vital section of society that really is important in "the war on terror"...the Arabs and Arab-American's, living in the US...feel safer, right? Oh, yes, it HAS to them feel all patriotic and safe now!

Come on! Any non-US citizen out there feel safer now? Speak up! Chime in, you folks in the back! :crazy:

dps
10-01-2006, 08:01 PM
One man's terroist is another man's freedom fighter. Unless the fighter is not trying to establish freedom for his people just out to elimanate everybody that does not agree with him, then he is a terrorist not a freedom fighter and does not desreve protection under our laws and consitution.

dps
10-01-2006, 08:05 PM
Great. Grieve for the innocents, that the terrorists have killed.

Ignore the innocents that we continue to allow to die (now, what kind of strange morality-system is that??) Do you grieve for the innocents the terrorists have killed and allowed killed by their actions?

Neil Mick
10-01-2006, 08:16 PM
One man's terroist is another man's freedom fighter.

One man's apple is another man's orange.

You seem to keep ignoring a salient point. Let me spell it out for you.

1. This law changes a basic, fundamental principle of governance, one of the bases for which the Constitution was written.
2. Worse, it places nearly unlimited power in the hands of one man, with regards to anyone he deems an "enemy combatant." Where I come from, we call that a "dictatorship." Where I live, we call that a "democracy." The two are often mutually exclusive.
3. A leader who makes mistakes with no oversight will be unmotivated to correct those mistakes. So, a President with the power to make prisoners disappear will hardly be eager to announce his mistakes to the world, if he later discovers it. So, we could well turn into the USSR, with its system of gulags, in time (3 years? We seemed to have a thriving torture-system in Romania, and Poland, before the curtain went up on that one).
4. This bill is more about the President trying to cover himself for the blood already on his hands, rather than "aiding in the war on terror."

Do you grieve for the innocents the terrorists have killed and allowed killed by their actions?

Do you have any evidence that torture and the present system of uberviolence brings us any closer to ending the actions, of these terrorists? Because if you don't: your question is irrelevant.

But, I grieve for everyone, who dies violently. That's not the point.

dps
10-01-2006, 08:31 PM
[QUOTE=Neil Mick]1. This law changes a basic, fundamental principle of governance, one of the bases for which the Constitution was written.[QUOTE]

" The writ of habeas corpus serves as an important check on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights. " http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm

Show me where terrorist have constitutional rights.

Neil Mick
10-01-2006, 11:50 PM
1. This law changes a basic, fundamental principle of governance, one of the bases for which the Constitution was written.

" The writ of habeas corpus serves as an important check on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights. " http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm

Show me where terrorist have constitutional rights.

Show me how you can conclusively prove that these people whose rights you wish to deny, are terrorists.

You can't: and so you duck the central issue.

(BTW, it's a REALLY good idea to read all of your source: not cherry-pick what you like to read. From your own source:

A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody.

In Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1778 (1992), the court observed that the Supreme Court has "recognized the fact that`[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.'

Here, let's repeat that, in case you missed it: "The fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.")

I'm guessing that a mistaken identity qualifies as "arbitary and lawless" state action.

I'm also guessing that you have no answer to my other point, above--that if a future President discovers, under this bill, that he is the warden of thousands of innocent people who have "disappeared:" that he will likely be less than willing to set them free, and admit his mistake.

So, you really cannot clearly say, who is the terrorist, or who is the non-citizen victim (nor, it appears: do you seem to care). But, up to this point: non-citizens DID have rights...even under US law. I believe that the US is a signatory of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights: (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/b1udhr.htm)

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

which, according to the Constitution: must be adhered to, as if it were US law.

But, this concerns you little, I know. Better to have a secret system of gulags where non-persons...ahh, I mean, non-citizens...um...sorry: "terrorists"...are locked up and forgotten, all so some weak President can claim that he's tough on the "war on terror."

Would that make you feel safer, knowing that a lot of Arab's (with no way to test their innocence) are jailed, and tortured?

dps
10-02-2006, 03:05 AM
Quick: do you know what Habeas Corpus is?
Yes, its about
Constitutional rights.

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html

"This document contains words, phrases, and concepts used in the United States Constitution. Links to this document can be found on the U.S. Constitution Page. Note that some words are defined only as they apply to the Constitution itself. You may also wish to see the Popular Names Page, the Notes Page, and the Advanced Topics Page."

"Habeas Corpus
habeas corpus n. Law A writ issued to bring a party before a court to prevent unlawful restraint. [<Med. Lat., you should have the body] Source: AHD

The basic premise behind habeas corpus is that you cannot be held against your will without just cause. To put it another way, you cannot be jailed if there are no charges against you. If you are being held, and you demand it, the courts must issue a writ or habeas corpus, which forces those holding you to answer as to why. If there is no good or compelling reason, the court must set you free. It is important to note that of all the civil liberties we take for granted today as a part of the Bill of Rights, the importance of habeas corpus is illustrated by the fact that it was the sole liberty thought important enough to be included in the original text of the Constitution."

dps
10-02-2006, 03:51 AM
Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."


http://www.uscourts.gov/outreach/topics/habeascorpus_casestudy.htm
The Role of Federal Courts in Balancing Liberties and Safety

Case Study

Johnson v. Eisentrager
339 U.S. 763 (1950)

Issue
Are foreign nationals entitled to habeas corpus relief in the federal courts if they have never lived in the United States?

Ruling (6-3)
No. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court stated that the convicted German nationals were not entitled to habeas relief in the federal courts.

dps
10-02-2006, 04:06 AM
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020123.html

"Are al Qaeda Fighters Prisoners of War?

First, what does it take to qualify as a prisoner of war? Article IV of the Geneva Convention states that members of irregular militias like al Qaeda qualify for prisoner-of-war status if their military organization satisfies four criteria.
[[Prisoners or unlawful combatants?]]

The criteria are: "(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

Al Qaeda does not satisfy these conditions. Perhaps Osama bin Laden could be considered "a person responsible for his subordinates," although the cell structure of al Qaeda belies the notion of a chain of command. But in any event, al Qaeda members openly flout the remaining three conditions.

Al Qaeda members deliberately attempt to blend into the civilian population - violating the requirement of having a "fixed distinctive sign" and "carrying arms openly." Moreover, they target civilians, which violates the "laws and customs of war."

Thus, al Qaeda members need not be treated as prisoners of war."


Applies to all terrorist.

deepsoup
10-02-2006, 04:17 AM
I always seem to find myself posting links to the BBC in response to Neil's threads.

Here's a radio programme that is rather interesting, in the context of this discussion:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/pip/np79a/

There's a link on that page to a streaming audio version which will be available at least for the next few days. Here's some more about it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/5381322.stm

Steve Mullen
10-02-2006, 05:58 AM
I think its a very fine balance that needs to be struck between giving too much freedom to would be/may be terrorists and to holding people who are just in the wrong skin at the wrong time. Its a kind of catch-22 situation for all of the main governments involved in the Iraq conflict at the moment, if they do too much they are condemed as being war-crimianls and taking everyones liberty and making the country a dictatorship etc, but if they do too little and something (9/11 and 7/7) happens we all ask where the protection was and why the government didn't do more to save us.

Incidently, while I was wirting this i was listening to bob dylan's the times they are a changin' and the track One too many mornings came on. I think one of the lines in it fits these kind of discussions perfectly

"You're right from your side, and I'm right from mine, we're both just one too many mornings and a thousand miles behind"

gdandscompserv
10-02-2006, 06:56 AM
Frankly, this scares the poop out of me. I just have a fundemental mistrust of the bozo's that are currently running OUR government.

This could have a significant impact on the way America deals with illegal immigration as well. Will illegal aliens no longer have access to our court system?

I just think we are giving up far too many freedoms in the name of "keeping us safe." I also don't feel any safer after losing many of our freedoms.

But what do I know. John Doe citizen that I am. There are far more competent people in charge of this operation than me. ;)

Hogan
10-02-2006, 07:09 AM
It wasn't but a couple hundred years ago that Americans were terrorists...You do remember the revolution don't you.


Wow - Americans in the Revolutionary War kidnapped, beheaded, tortured, "donkey" bombed (unless you are going to tell me there wer cars back then, too!) & used suicide bombers deliberately targeting British civilians during the war?? Man, I learn something new everyday....

Mike Grant
10-02-2006, 07:22 AM
There are two problems here; defining the meaning of 'terrorist' and 'torture'.

Personally, I don't have a problem with a moderate degree of physical and/or mental coercion in order to obtain information which may prevent a potential 'terrorist' attack and save lives (see Alan Dershowitz's discussion of the 'ticking time bomb' terrorist). The problem is that, in general, the greater the coercion the more likely it is that the victim will just tell you what he thinks you want to hear. We tried this in Northern Ireland, including internment without trial, with mixed results and ultimately we lost the war.

Talking of Northern Ireland, what were you guys in the states doing when we were getting bombed by Irish terrorists (sorry, 'freedom fighters') and you were letting them run free over there raising money and purchasing weapons and explosives? I guess it feels a little different when your own electorate is on the recieving end. Anyway, thanks a bunch Teddy Kennedy.

(Mind you, credit where credit's due. Not every bloke with a skin full could get a car door open under water...)

James Davis
10-02-2006, 10:22 AM
Its a kind of catch-22 situation for all of the main governments involved in the Iraq conflict at the moment, if they do too much they are condemed as being war-crimianls and taking everyones liberty and making the country a dictatorship etc, but if they do too little and something (9/11 and 7/7) happens we all ask where the protection was and why the government didn't do more to save us.


Another catch-22 situation is this:

After everything we've seen with Clinton and Bush, anybody who wants to be president must be crazy. :crazy:

gdandscompserv
10-02-2006, 10:24 AM
Wow - Americans in the Revolutionary War kidnapped, beheaded, tortured, "donkey" bombed (unless you are going to tell me there wer cars back then, too!) & used suicide bombers deliberately targeting British civilians during the war?? Man, I learn something new everyday....
Kidnapped?
Yes
Beheaded?
Not sure, but the method of death is really unimportant. Beheading is just another way of killing someone. It's just more common in some countries than others. Is hanging someone by the neck until dead an act of terrorism?
Tortured?
Yes
Donkey bombed?
LOL. That's kind of funny.
Suicide bombers?
I'm sure many Americans did similar things, we just call them war hero's. One does what one thinks is necessary in a given situation. They become suicide bombers because it's highly effective, no matter how reprehensible you think it is. IED's and suicide bombers are one of the most difficult things for our troops to defend against. It's driving our war fighters and the Department of Defense nuts trying to figure out how to defend against them. We have largely been unsuccessful in doing so.

Hogan
10-02-2006, 11:56 AM
... One does what one thinks is necessary in a given situation. They become suicide bombers because it's highly effective....

So, when did you stop believing in right & wrong, and good & bad?

;)

Neil Mick
10-02-2006, 12:13 PM
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020123.html

"Are al Qaeda Fighters Prisoners of War?

Thus, al Qaeda members need not be treated as prisoners of war."

Applies to all terrorist.

Excellent: you've managed to make use of your search-engine.

Sadly, context seems to be lacking, in those searches.

Justice Still Too Far Away (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/justice-still-too-far-away/2006/10/02/1159641261625.html)

The US Supreme Court ruled earlier this year in the Hamdan case that the military commission process was unlawful and violated the Geneva Convention and the US Military Code of Justice. The case involved a Yemeni national charged with offences that the US Government sought to have tried before a military commission.

Legal experts around the world were vocal in pointing out the serious deficiencies in the military commissions. However, any independent advice questioning the legality of the commissions was consistently dismissed by the US and Australian Governments. It was not until the Hamdan decision that the Australian Government was forced to explain that its unflinching support for the military commissions had been based on the "wrong" advice. To date, the Government has not released any details or copies of the advice it relied upon.

In response to the Supreme Court's damning ruling in Hamdan, the US Government has established new military commissions that continue to fall below accepted notions of justice. Guantanamo Bay detainees can be prosecuted using hearsay evidence. Evidence can be withheld from an accused on national security grounds.

Witnesses are not required to be cross-examined. Methods of obtaining evidence from detainees over lengthy periods of detention are also questionable.

And so, unfortunately: you continue to dance around my central question:

Show me how you can conclusively prove that these people whose rights you wish to deny, are terrorists.

You can't: and so you duck the central issue.

Would that make you feel safer, knowing that a lot of Arab's (with no way to test their innocence) are jailed, and tortured?

Tree...here; forest...here: (http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=68362)

This law grants the executive branch (specifically Bush) the extraordinary right to label anyone anywhere in the world an "unlawful enemy combatant" and gives him the legal right to arrest and incarcerate them indefinitely in military prisons.

Persons liable will include anyone who even innocently contributes financially to a charitable organization thought to be associated with any nation or group the US believes supports terrorist or hostile actions against the US.

On September 27 and 28, 2006, freedom and justice effectively died in the US ... and no one will be secure anywhere in the world as long as this act is the law of the land. One day it will be repealed ... if the republic survives long enough to do it which now is very much in doubt.

US citizens are not exempted from this law with one important exception ... for now at least. Because of the June, 2004 Supreme Court Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision, citizens of this country legally still retain their legal right to file a writ of habeas corpus if arrested and detained. This means they must be charged with a crime, be tried and allowed the right to appeal any conviction in a US court of law. But even this remaining right now hangs by a weak thread. It, too, may be abolished in the name of national security in a time of war if or when another major "terrorist" attack occurs on US soil.

Should that happen, which some experts believe is a certainty, democracy will likely give way to martial law and the suspension of the constitution, and echoes of Benjamin Franklin's words at the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 will be heard.
At that time, he reportedly said in answer to whether the nation now had a republic or a monarchy: "A republic, if you can keep it." We hardly need wonder what he'd say today.

Provisions in the Military Commissions Act

Some of the key elements of the Military Commissions Act are as follows:

-- It annuls the right of habeas corpus for all non-US citizens and applies it retroactively to all current detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere. Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution specifically says: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." (note to David: Al Qaeda operating outside the US, does not = "rebellion," or "insurrection," sorry). This provision is now constitutionally null and void for all non-US citizens and nearly so for those of us who are.

-- It empowers the president with authority to decide what constitutes torture, effectively legalizing this act of barbarism henceforth against any detainee anywhere.

-- It grants US officials, including CIA operatives, retroactive immunity from prosecution for having authorized the use of torture or directly committed acts of it.

-- It prohibits detainees from the right to invoke the protections of the Geneva Conventions or the use of them in any US court. These conventions are binding international laws and thus the supreme law of the land. It no longer matters here.

-- It gives the chief executive authority to interpret and apply the Geneva Conventions according to his sole judgment.

-- It grants the president the right to convene military commissions to try "unlawful enemy combatants" and gives the chief executive broad latitude to decide on his sole authority whomever he wishes to so-designate and for whatever reason.

-- It allows civilians to be tried by military commissions and not in a civilian court of law and limits the rights of detainees to be represented by the counsel of their choosing.

-- It allows no guarantee trials will be conducted within a reasonable time.

-- In violation of binding international law, it permits torture-extracted evidence to be used against the accused in a trial.

-- It allows the use of classified evidence to be used but not to make it available to be challenged by defendants.

-- It permits hearsay evidence and coerced testimony to be used.

-- It allows military commissions to impose death sentences.

-- It allows indefinite and secret detentions.

In your one-note search to debate the limits of Habeas, you ignore the implications of the rest of the bill. Military commissions, torture, the Pres designating anyone he wants to be "enemy combatants..."

But I guess it's all good for you, so long as we "get dem terrerests," right? :rolleyes:

Guilty Spark
10-02-2006, 12:37 PM
Hey Neil, how are things?

quote]Let's face it: torture doesn't work. Assuming it achieves a short term goal, you're still, at the end of the day, a torturer, using the same tools of terror on the tortured, as terrorists use upon civilians. Worse, you might well be torturing innocents:[/quote]

Question, whats your deffinition of tourture?
For the most part I agree, tourture is bad karma, but defining tourture is tricky isnt it?
Is making someone go for 12 hours without food or water tourture? (kids do it in africa all the time)
What about 3 days?
Is punching someone in the stomach and roughing them up a bit, tourture?
What if it's punching said "bad guy" who was caught planting a bomb on the side of the road . What if roughing that guy up a little (or hell even hurting him) means that you FIND the supplier of his bombs and you just saved 8 kids and 6 adults who would have been caught in a future road side bomb.

I agree, at the end of the day you're still using tourture to get what you want. Could it be a matter of when a line is drawn? Roughing someone up for information which leads to saving X number of soldiers and Y number of civilians compared to when "they" threaten the locals looking to the US for work. "If you work for the americans we'll kill you and your family" and follow through on their threat.

Every day I'm more and more impressed with the americans I'm around. They don't get a quarter of the credit they deserve for helping the people they help.

Neil Mick
10-02-2006, 12:43 PM
Show me how you can conclusively prove that these people whose rights you wish to deny, are terrorists.

You can't: and so you duck the central issue.

Would that make you feel safer, knowing that a lot of Arab's (with no way to test their innocence) are jailed, and tortured?

Oh, and in case you think I'm employing hyperbole...

I just heard this info on the radio:

Amnesty International accuses Pakistan of illegal detentions for US rewards (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/30/asia/AS_GEN_Pakistan_Human_Rights.php)


Hundreds of Pakistanis and foreigners have been rounded up on suspicion of links to terrorism since the U.S.-led war on terror started after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, Amnesty International said in a report released Friday in Islamabad.

"The war on terror has added a new layer of human rights violations to the existing patterns of abuses (in Pakistan)," said Angelika Pathak, an Amnesty International researcher who helped prepare the report, titled "Human Rights Ignored in the War on Terror."

"The phenomenon of enforced disappearance was virtually unknown before the war on terror," she said.

The human rights group suggested that the lure of U.S. government rewards had led in many cases to illegal arrests of people, including women and children, in Pakistan.

Pakistan also has its own bounty program that provides money for the capture of suspected terrorists, which the report did not take into consideration

********
"We have earned bounties totaling millions of dollars," Musharraf wrote in his book, "In the Line of Fire," without specifying how much was paid.

Cordone said in a statement that many people detained in Pakistan ended up in secret locations or at U.S. prisons, including Guantanamo Bay and Bagram, north of the Afghan capital, Kabul.

"Hundreds of people have been picked up in mass arrests, many have been sold to the USA as 'terrorists' simply on the word of their captor, and hundreds have been transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Bagram Air base or secret detention centers run by the USA," he said.

"The road to Guantanamo very literally starts in Pakistan," he said.

Neil Mick
10-02-2006, 01:28 PM
Let's face it: torture doesn't work. Assuming it achieves a short term goal, you're still, at the end of the day, a torturer, using the same tools of terror on the tortured, as terrorists use upon civilians. Worse, you might well be torturing innocents

Hey Neil, how are things?

Question, whats your deffinition of tourture?

Well, it's a bit of a side-topic, but I go with the dictionary.

Torture (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/torture)

the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

The Administration likes to play with the word "excruciating," and fuzz what exactly is torture. And, this is the problem. The moment we cross that line is the moment we start redefining what torture is.

And in that moment, we start to numb ourselves, to what we're doing.

Uncomfortably Numb to Torture (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0930-25.htm)

Such brutalities were regular fare at Abu Ghraib because interrogation, by civilian and military personnel, was regular fare. But interrogation was largely sidestepped in the Abu Ghraib trials, in which prosecutors focused on what soldiers did for "fun," for "laughs," with common criminals "of no value" to U.S. intelligence. The infamous pyramid and sexual mortifications were not part of interrogations, so these formed the centerpiece of criminal charges. The daily application of fear and cold and want and pain — what Spc. Charles A. Graner Jr., the putative ringleader of the scandal at Abu Ghraib, called his job of "terrorizing prisoners" — was an accompaniment to questioning, so it went unpunished.

"We just humiliated them," England said; it could have been worse. For many detainees, it was. Two days before England was photographed laughing at prisoners, Manadel Jamadi died in a shower stall at Abu Ghraib. Army investigators found that he entered the stall under his own power with civilian interrogators said to be from the CIA. Later, soldiers smiled in pictures with his corpse. The interrogators had vanished, and no one was charged.

Congress would never justify murder by interrogators, but it hasn't insisted that anyone be held accountable for Jamadi's death either. There's a similar indifference to accountability in the one case in the Abu Ghraib scandal unavoidably linked to interrogation.

The Army never took a sworn statement from the prisoner who was forced to stand atop a box, draped in a hood and cape and told he would get a shock if he moved. Then the Army conveniently lost him, and though the MPs who improvised his ghoulish torment went to prison, the civilian interrogator who the MPs said instructed them to keep the prisoner awake was never charged. Take away the bogus wires and the iconic costume and this is the kind of treatment the president says is absolutely necessary for our safety.

The bold opposition wags a finger but leaves it to the president to set the rules. Where is the outrage? Like England and the others who went from good to bad, or bad to worse, through acquaintance with cruelty, finally accommodating themselves to it or even administering it, the citizenry, the media and the politicians have become insensible to horror.

For the most part I agree, tourture is bad karma, but defining tourture is tricky isnt it?

Only for those, who utilize it.

Is making someone go for 12 hours without food or water tourture? (kids do it in africa all the time)

What about 3 days?

But not by choice, or design. Give someone the tools to give, or take away the food: and yes, this is torture (esp if the tortured has no idea when they'll get to eat, again)

Is punching someone in the stomach and roughing them up a bit, tourture?

Only if injury is caused.

What if it's punching said "bad guy" who was caught planting a bomb on the side of the road . What if roughing that guy up a little (or hell even hurting him) means that you FIND the supplier of his bombs and you just saved 8 kids and 6 adults who would have been caught in a future road side bomb.

You see what you're doing? Already, you're caught on the slippery slope of defining, and rationalizing, torture.

It's "OK" to "rough up, or hurt" some guy as a rationale to save lives...so, is it "OK" to "rough up, or hurt" some guy if you suspect it will save some lives?

What about if this "guy" is really a 9-year-old girl? Is it OK then?

And what if you're wrong, and you "rough up" this guy/girl/suspect for no reason, and the only intel you get is a good price for unseeded dates? Is it still "OK" to employ torture?

I agree, at the end of the day you're still using tourture to get what you want. Could it be a matter of when a line is drawn? Roughing someone up for information which leads to saving X number of soldiers and Y number of civilians compared to when "they" threaten the locals looking to the US for work. "If you work for the americans we'll kill you and your family" and follow through on their threat.

The Myth of the Ticking Time Bomb (http://progressive.org/mag_mccoy1006)

sk not for whom the bomb ticks, Mr. and Ms. America. Right now, across Los Angeles, timers on dozens of toxic nerve-gas canisters are set to detonate in just hours and send some two million Americans to their deaths in writhing agony.

But take hope. We have one chance, just one, to avert this atrocity and save the lives of millions. Agent Jack Bauer of the Counter Terrorist Unit has his hunting knife poised over the eye of a trembling traitor who may know the identity of those who set these bombs. As a clock ticks menacingly and the camera focuses on knife point poised to plunge into eyeball, the traitor breaks and identifies the Muslim terrorists, giving Agent Bauer the lead he needs to crack this case wide open.


Number one: In the real world, the probability that a terrorist might be captured after concealing a ticking nuclear bomb in Times Square and that his captors would somehow recognize his significance is phenomenally slender. The scenario assumes a highly improbable array of variables that runs something like this:

—First, FBI or CIA agents apprehend a terrorist at the precise moment between timer's first tick and bomb's burst.

—Second, the interrogators somehow have sufficiently detailed foreknowledge of the plot to know they must interrogate this very person and do it right now.

—Third, these same officers, for some unexplained reason, are missing just a few critical details that only this captive can divulge.

—Fourth, the biggest leap of all, these officers with just one shot to get the information that only this captive can divulge are best advised to try torture, as if beating him is the way to assure his wholehearted cooperation.

Number two: This scenario still rests on the critical, utterly unexamined assumption that torture can get useful intelligence quickly from this or any hardened terrorist.

Advocates of the ticking bomb often cite the brutal torture of Abdul Hakim Murad in Manila in 1995, which they say stopped a plot to blow up a dozen trans-Pacific aircraft and kill 4,000 innocent passengers. Except, of course, for the simple fact that Murad's torture did nothing of the sort. As The Washington Post has reported, Manila police got all their important information from Murad in the first few minutes when they seized his laptop with the entire bomb plot. All the supposed details gained from the sixty-seven days of incessant beatings, spiced by techniques like cigarettes to the genitals, were, as one Filipino officer testified in a New York court, fabrications fed to Murad by Philippine police.

Even if the terrorist begins to talk under torture, interrogators have a hard time figuring out whether he is telling the truth or not. Testing has found that professional interrogators perform within the 45 to 60 percent range in separating truth from lies—little better than flipping a coin. Thus, as intelligence data moves through three basic stages—acquisition, analysis, and action—the chances that good intelligence will be ignored are high.

Number three: Once we agree to torture the one terrorist with his hypothetical ticking bomb, then we admit a possibility, even an imperative, for torturing hundreds who might have ticking bombs or thousands who just might have some knowledge about those bombs. "You can't know whether a person knows where the bomb is," explains Georgetown University Law Professor David Cole, "or even if they're telling the truth. Because of this, you end up going down a slippery slope and sanctioning torture in general."

Most of those rounded up by military sweeps in Iraq and Afghanistan for imprisonment at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo had nothing to do with terrorism. A recent analysis of the Pentagon listing of Guantánamo's 517 detainees reveals that 86 percent were arrested not by U.S. forces but by Northern Alliance and Pakistani warlords eager to collect a $5,000 bounty for every "terrorist" captured.

Number four: Useful intelligence perhaps, but at what cost? The price of torture is unacceptably high because it disgraces and then undermines the country that countenances it. For the French in Algeria, for the Americans in Vietnam, and now for the Americans in Iraq, the costs have been astronomical and have outweighed any gains gathered by torture.

Ironically, though, torture of the many can produce results, albeit at a surprisingly high political price.

The CIA tortured tens of thousands in Vietnam and the French tortured hundreds of thousands in Algeria. During the Battle of Algiers in 1957, French soldiers arrested 30 percent to 40 percent of all males in the city's Casbah and subjected most of these to what one French officer called "beatings, electric shocks, and, in particular, water torture, which was always the most dangerous technique for the prisoner." Though many resisted to the point of death, mass torture gained sufficient intelligence to break the rebel underground. The CIA's Phoenix program no doubt damaged the Viet Cong's communist infrastructure by torture-interrogation of countless South Vietnamese civilians.

Number five: These dismal conclusions lead to a last, uncomfortable question: If torture produces limited gains at such high political cost, why does any rational American leader condone interrogation practices "tantamount to torture"?

One answer to this question seems to lie with a prescient CIA Cold War observation about Soviet leaders in times of stress. "When feelings of insecurity develop within those holding power," reads an agency analysis of Kremlin leadership applicable to the post-9/11 White House, "they become increasingly suspicious and put great pressures upon the secret police to obtain arrests and confessions. At such times, police officials are inclined to condone anything which produces a speedy ‘confession,' and brutality may become widespread." In sum, the powerful often turn to torture in times of crisis, not because it works but because it salves their fears and insecurities with the psychic balm of empowerment.

As we slide down the slippery slope to torture in general, we should also realize that there is a chasm at the bottom called extrajudicial execution. With the agency's multinational gulag full of dozens, even hundreds, of detainees of dwindling utility, CIA agents, active and retired, have been vocal in their complaints about the costs and inconvenience of limitless, even lifetime, incarceration for these tortured terrorists. The ideal solution to this conundrum from an agency perspective is pump and dump, as in Vietnam—pump the terrorists for information, and then dump the bodies. After all, the systematic French torture of thousands from the Casbah of Algiers in 1957 also entailed more than 3,000 "summary executions" as "an inseparable part" of this campaign, largely, as one French general put it, to ensure that "the machine of justice" not be "clogged with cases." For similar reasons, the CIA's Phoenix program produced, by the agency's own count, over 20,000 extrajudicial killings.

Number six: The use of torture to stop ticking bombs leads ultimately to a cruel choice—either legalize this brutality, à la Dershowitz and Bush, or accept that the logical corollary to state-sanctioned torture is state-sponsored murder, à la Vietnam.

Steven
10-02-2006, 03:22 PM
9. to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form

Dang ... I guess we're all practicing torture since we practice aikido.

:-)

dps
10-02-2006, 05:23 PM
And so, unfortunately: you continue to dance around my central question:

In your one-note search to debate the limits of Habeas, you ignore the implications of the rest of the bill. Military commissions, torture, the Pres designating anyone he wants to be "enemy combatants..." No, I was answering your first questions.

Quick: do you know what Habeas Corpus is?

If you don't: you have our media to thank, for your ignorance. Congress just passed a bill that guts Habeas Corpus, for noncitizens.


But I guess it's all good for you, so long as we "get dem terrerests," right? :rolleyes:Do you want to get the terrorist? Or would prefer more dead Americans?

Neil Mick
10-02-2006, 08:02 PM
9. to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form

Dang ... I guess we're all practicing torture since we practice aikido.

:-)

Considering the current bill just passed will likely cause more innocent deaths...that isn't very funny, IMO.


No, I was answering your first questions.

All the while, ignoring the greater issue.

Do you want to get the terrorist? Or would prefer more dead Americans?

And, can you document exactly HOW this will make us SAFER? No?? Then, IMO: your words are hollow.

Or, to put it in an equation:

More torture does not = safer Americans

More likely, it's the opposite.

Torture has no guarantee that it will "get" the terrorists. I suggest you go back and read the links I posted in response to Grant.

Guilty Spark
10-02-2006, 08:50 PM
The Administration likes to play with the word "excruciating," and fuzz what exactly is torture. And, this is the problem. The moment we cross that line is the moment we start redefining what torture is

I disagree, I think specifically giving out DOs and DON'T will avoid alot of problems. Give someone lanes to work in. You MAY deprive someone of this or that, use not debilitating physical force etc etc.. You may NOT scare someone, starve them, deface religions symbols etc.. (Just using the first examples that comes to mind). By defining what exactly constitutes as tourture and what doesnt (and a more detailed description that a dictonary term) we'll know exactly what is acceptable and what isn't.

Only if injury is caused.
What about mental injury though? If I'm terrified of spiders and you put aspideron my face and I start singing telling you everything you want to know, that might be considered tourture.

You see what you're doing? Already, you're caught on the slippery slope of defining, and rationalizing, torture.

It's "OK" to "rough up, or hurt" some guy as a rationale to save lives...so, is it "OK" to "rough up, or hurt" some guy if you suspect it will save some lives?

What about if this "guy" is really a 9-year-old girl? Is it OK then?

And what if you're wrong, and you "rough up" this guy/girl/suspect for no reason, and the only intel you get is a good price for unseeded dates? Is it still "OK" to employ torture?

Good questions all. Much about my level to decide too, thankfully.
I guess I am finding my reservations about physically man handeling someone is starting to give way. I really hate seeing bombs blow apart men women and children walking on the street. Or hearing about how a bomb killed a bunch of soldiers who were giving out candy to children and trying to rebuild a community.
Maybe thats how it all starts eh? Justifing something 'for the greater good'. Interogating someone needs to be monitored, preferablly by a civilian organization. Military always has to be held accountable for actions.

I agree that this kinda stuff amounts to putting what may be a really big gun in a childs hands.
More torture does not = safer Americans

More likely, it's the opposite.
It DOES make safer americans (especially the lives of the soldiers it saves)
I think it's split down the middle.
Being physical with prisoners has 2 results.
a) It provides commanders with inteligence that DOES save lives and civilians
b) It erodes the whole moral high ground and in some cases, wrongly applied, it turns neutral parties into enemies which kills our guys and civilians. Something I think is really important to avoid.

There are no guarentees. A lot of these guys are smart and using our own laws against us. We can't let them do that yet we can't just ignoreour own laws. Fun situation :)

Theword tourture is too wide a brush that people use to describe every type of physical contact between a guard/interrogater and their prisoner. I think the key lies in defining what exactly is acceptable and what isn't.

dps
10-02-2006, 09:47 PM
And, can you document exactly HOW this will make us SAFER? No?? Then, IMO: your words are hollow.


Less terrorist = safer Americans
No terrorist = safer world

Neil Mick
10-02-2006, 10:26 PM
Less terrorist = safer Americans
No terrorist = safer world

How to find the terrorists = David, without a clue

Neil Mick
10-02-2006, 10:40 PM
I disagree, I think specifically giving out DOs and DON'T will avoid alot of problems.

This already exists: within the Geneva Conventions.


What about mental injury though? If I'm terrified of spiders and you put aspideron my face and I start singing telling you everything you want to know, that might be considered tourture.

Yes: this is euphemistically called "torture-lite," within US policy circles.

I am finding my reservations about physically man handeling someone is starting to give way. I really hate seeing bombs blow apart men women and children walking on the street. Or hearing about how a bomb killed a bunch of soldiers who were giving out candy to children and trying to rebuild a community.

No healthy, rational person likes to see these things. But how will torture make these things stop? Torture wasn't invented yesterday: and it so far seems not to have solved much, considering how long we've studied it. There are whole museums dedicated to torture instruments through the ages. Did torture solve provlems of violence, in the past?

It DOES make safer americans (especially the lives of the soldiers it saves)
I think it's split down the middle.
Being physical with prisoners has 2 results.
a) It provides commanders with inteligence that DOES save lives and civilians

Prove it. You should take another look at those links I provided, above.

Again:

THe Myth of the Ticking Bomb (http://progressive.org/mag_mccoy1006)

Advocates of the ticking bomb often cite the brutal torture of Abdul Hakim Murad in Manila in 1995, which they say stopped a plot to blow up a dozen trans-Pacific aircraft and kill 4,000 innocent passengers. Except, of course, for the simple fact that Murad’s torture did nothing of the sort. As The Washington Post has reported, Manila police got all their important information from Murad in the first few minutes when they seized his laptop with the entire bomb plot. All the supposed details gained from the sixty-seven days of incessant beatings, spiced by techniques like cigarettes to the genitals, were, as one Filipino officer testified in a New York court, fabrications fed to Murad by Philippine police.

Even if the terrorist begins to talk under torture, interrogators have a hard time figuring out whether he is telling the truth or not. Testing has found that professional interrogators perform within the 45 to 60 percent range in separating truth from lies—little better than flipping a coin. Thus, as intelligence data moves through three basic stages—acquisition, analysis, and action—the chances that good intelligence will be ignored are high.

After fifty years of fighting enemies, communist and terrorist, with torture, we now have sufficient evidence to conclude that torture of the few yields little useful information. As the ancient Roman jurist Ulpian noted 1,800 years ago, when tortured the strong will resist and the weak will say anything to end the pain.

History is replete with examples of the strong who resisted even the most savage tortures. After the July 20, 1944, bomb plot against Hitler, the Gestapo subjected Fabian von Schlabrendorff to four weeks of torture by metal spikes and beatings so severe he suffered a heart attack. But with a stoicism typical of these conspirators, he broke his silence only to give the Gestapo a few scraps of vague information when he feared involuntarily blurting out serious intelligence.

Then there are the weak. Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a senior Al Qaeda leader, under torture told his captors that Iraq trained Al Qaeda in chemical and biological weapons. This raises the possibility that he, like Murad, had been tortured into giving fabricated intelligence. Colin Powell relied on this false information in his now-disavowed speech to the United Nations before the Iraq War.

As Yale legal historian John Langbein puts it, “History’s most important lesson is that it has not been possible to make coercion compatible with truth.”

Proponents of torture present a false choice between tortured intelligence and no intelligence at all. There is, in fact, a well-established American alternative to torture that we might call empathetic interrogation. U.S. Marines first used this technique during World War II to extract accurate intelligence from fanatical Japanese captives on Saipan and Tinian within forty-eight hours of landing, and the FBI has practiced it with great success in the decades since. After the East Africa bombings of U.S. embassies, the bureau employed this method to gain some of our best intelligence on Al Qaeda and win U.S. court convictions of all of the accused.

One of the bureau agents who worked on that case, Dan Coleman, has since been appalled by the CIA’s coercive methods after 9/11. “Have any of these guys ever tried to talk to anyone who’s been deprived of his clothes?” Coleman asked. “He’s going to be ashamed and humiliated and cold. He’ll tell you anything you want to hear to get his clothes back. There’s no value in it.” By contrast, FBI reliance on due process and empathy proved effective in terror cases by building rapport with detainees

There are other tools in the toolbox, besides torture. Most of them work better.

Guilty Spark
10-03-2006, 03:35 AM
I still think tourture is being used and thrown around the same way evil doers freedomhaters and terrorists are (as words).

I agree 100% that tourtueing someone is wrong, evil and the ends don't justify the means. Theres way too big of a margin for error, margin for hurting some dude in the wrong place at the wrong time and the very real possibility of making friends (or neutral parties) enemies.

This said I think having a big hug no touching no hurt feelings policy is dumb and counter-productive. Killing someone or messing them up for life is out of the question but I don't see a problem with putting someone in a stressful situation, man handleing them etc.. I think you're arguing from an all or nothing point of view?
I'm out of my lanes with this stuff (I'm not a qualified interogator) but making some guesswork here there are lots of other options available that fall inbetween treating these guys like glass and ripping their guts out.

Asking me to prove it? I wish I could use some very real examples I have but at the moment my hands are tied (zing!).
I'll conjure a simple enough one up.
A low level guy is captured planting a bomb on the side of the road, its pretty high tech.
He refuses to confess where he's getting the stuff or who he's working for. The others involved will continue to supply/recieve explosive devices and set them off. More often than not, civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time die.
Now buddy is handed over to an interogation team or whatever and they so their stuff. I'm not saying they just destroy the guy but they do their thing, deprive them of sleep and food (been there) maybe break them down emotionally, get them crying, get them feeling guilty for whatever their up to.
Buddy breaks and gives the name of where a bunch of IEDs are stashed AND one of the middle mens name. "good guys" sweep in, destroy the IEDs and take one of the middle weight bad guys out of the picture.
IS it war over? Not by a long shot but it's one more piece of the chess board. Sure another piece may pop right back up but what's the alternitive? Give them free reign?

Interogating (perhaps not tourturing) does get information. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's not. Sometimes it saves lives, other times it doesn't. Not even bothering with an attempt to get information will NEVER save lives.

:triangle:

Neil Mick
10-03-2006, 11:27 AM
I agree 100% that tourtueing someone is wrong, evil and the ends don't justify the means. Theres way too big of a margin for error, margin for hurting some dude in the wrong place at the wrong time and the very real possibility of making friends (or neutral parties) enemies.

Good...we agree.

This said I think having a big hug no touching no hurt feelings policy is dumb and counter-productive. Killing someone or messing them up for life is out of the question but I don't see a problem with putting someone in a stressful situation, man handleing them etc.. I think you're arguing from an all or nothing point of view?

No, I'm not. I go with the same opinion on interrogation as my source, above..."empathic interrogation" receives far more positive results, than "rough stuff."


I'm out of my lanes with this stuff (I'm not a qualified interogator)

(As you might imagine,) me neither.

Asking me to prove it? I wish I could use some very real examples I have but at the moment my hands are tied (zing!).

:uch: Ow! :uch:

I'll conjure a simple enough one up.
A low level guy is captured planting a bomb on the side of the road, its pretty high tech.
He refuses to confess where he's getting the stuff or who he's working for. The others involved will continue to supply/recieve explosive devices and set them off. More often than not, civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time die.

OK, let's examine the assumptions, in your example. You make several:

1. The "good guys" have captured the "bad guy," and the "good guys" KNOW he's using IED's.
2. The "bad guy" ALSO has intimate knowledge of the supply-chain of the explosives, as well as the infrastructure of his organization (he may well not know anyone other than one person).

More often than not, these factors are absent, in an interrogation situation. The Army, through various means, picks up a suspect and s/he MAY be an insurgent/terrorist: or s/he may have been at the wrong place, wrong time.

Now buddy is handed over to an interogation team or whatever and they so their stuff.

Now terrorist/innocent victim is handed over to an interrogation team and they do their stuff.

IMO, it's far better to employ empathic interrogation than "torture-lite," which is documented to have long-lasting psychological effect (just ask Maher Arar (http://www.maherarar.ca/mahers%20story.php))

I'm not saying they just destroy the guy but they do their thing, deprive them of sleep and food (been there) maybe break them down emotionally, get them crying, get them feeling guilty for whatever their up to.

Buddy breaks and gives the name of where a bunch of IEDs are stashed AND one of the middle mens name. "good guys" sweep in, destroy the IEDs and take one of the middle weight bad guys out of the picture.

More assumptions:

3. The guy/girl/old person breaks. Supposing s/he doesn't? Should they "take it to the next level?"
4. The suspect tells the truth. Suppose the info is wrong, and Abdul tells them that his most hated enemy, Mahmood, is the ringleader, and that they should break down his door?

A nice story, but again (as with the "ticking bomb") this is an idealization, with too many holes in it, to justify a failed and destructive policy.

Sure another piece may pop right back up but what's the alternitive? Give them free reign?

Nope. Use methods approved by the Geneva Conventions. Give clear, transparent oversight and allow every single detainee access to a legal system, with full access to the Red Cross and international agencies.

Interogating (perhaps not tourturing) does get information. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's not. Sometimes it saves lives, other times it doesn't.

Other than mainstream media (movies, and TV), you have no way to know if this is true.

OTOH, I have documented several cases where torture is ineffective, or (in the case of Maher Arar) outright destructive.

Not even bothering with an attempt to get information will NEVER save lives.

No one is saying that nothing should be done. But, we had all the tools necessary to capture, detain and question suspects, well before the Patriot Act. We do not need a law giving Bush the right to torture and disappear anyone he likes, to make us safer.

If there was any failure in "getting the terrorists" before 9-11, it was in the Bush Administration's patent ignoring of the signs and memo's that warned of the plot.

If torture is so effective in gaining confessions, how come there are no convictions of the detainee's at Gitmo? Or, Abu Ghraib? Empiric evidence suggests that torture is ineffective in weeding out the terrorists.

Mike Grant
10-03-2006, 11:32 AM
"If torture is so effective in gaining confessions, how come there are no convictions of the detainee's at Gitmo? Or, Abu Ghraib? Empiric evidence suggests that torture is ineffective in weeding out the terrorists."

It's not particularly effective-that's the best arguement against it. Ever see the Battle of Algiers? Great film, the French made extensive use of torture and 'won' the battle. But they lost the war.

Mike Sigman
10-03-2006, 11:33 AM
Couldn't we just lump all these Neil Mick posts into a single heading saying: "Any enemy of the US is the friend of Neil Mick"? Think of the electrons it would save. ;)

Mike

Neil Mick
10-03-2006, 11:39 AM
Ever see the Battle of Algiers? Great film, the French made extensive use of torture and 'won' the battle. But they lost the war.

Kudos for mentioning that film, Mike. You're right: it IS a great film: easily the best film about insurgency and occupation, ever made.

It also shows the limits of torture, as well as the limits of the use of violence, by the insurgents.

Steve Mullen
10-03-2006, 01:30 PM
I'm sure many Americans did similar things, we just call them war hero's. One does what one thinks is necessary in a given situation.

at the risk of starting a trend here this reminds me of another dylan song on the times they are a changin, its called 'with god on our side'

Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.

When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.

Seriously id reccomend buying the album if you dont have it. If you think you are valid in what you do then the body count doesn't matter. look no further than hollywood to see 'the hero' blasting his way through countless other people in their quest. The viewer cheers them on. Good and evil are all relative to whose side you are on.

Guilty Spark
10-03-2006, 08:03 PM
Hey Neil,

It's easy enough to shoot holes in any argument. Always two sides to everything of course. I'm just giving an example of things going right.
Believe you me I'm a huge supporter of taking the softer approach and NOT making enemies when you can make friends instead. I think it works 1000 more. It's basically a popularity contest. I'll just generalize saying good guys and bad guys refering to us and them, no need to point out the obvious holes in the argument of whos good and whos bad :)

Anyhow, I've seen our guys refuse to hand over prisoners to local police because the commander on the ground felt like the 'prisoner' would be exicuted if they did. Very good call on his part. Commanders not firing on a suspected enemy because it couldnt be confirmed that they were infact the enemy or because the enemy was surounded by civilians. The war is full of instances like that just don't make it to the news. It's not front page material.

Heard someone say that occupations of countries never work and I believe it.
I think wars like this won't be won by military force but by humanitarian aid and hgelping a country rebuild itself. Makes it undesirable to terrorists.
Whats important is having a strong and effectmilitary force in place to protect that countries citizens and it's rebuilders WHILE the country is getting back on their feet.

I agree giving someone laws that makes it okay for someone to disapear is garbage.

Missed the comment earlier, saying David didn't know where to find a terrorist or couldn't fnd one.
Their easy to find. One only needs walk down the street alone and they will come find you, knife and camera in hand.

Good and evil are all relative to whose side you are on.
So murdering 6million people could be considered being the good guys, just depending on what side your on?
Never liked that who 'just depends on what side your on' thing.
Evil deeds are evil deeds. Both sides in WW2 for example did some bad things. One side really went to town though.

Neil Mick
10-03-2006, 09:54 PM
at the risk of starting a trend here this reminds me of another dylan song on the times they are a changin, its called 'with god on our side'

Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.

When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.

Gotta love youtube:

With God on Our Side (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usab2PLfilE)

Good and evil are all relative to whose side you are on

Yes, good and evil, right and wrong, all seem relative. And as the song implies: everyone seems to claim God's on their side, and right and wrong are moving targets.

I don't know why, but this conversation made me think of the term, "right livelihood," and Gandhi. This article was googled at the top of the list:

Right Livelihood (http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=412)

To make work into right livelihood, we must pay attention to just who we are as a species — our strengths and our weaknesses — for it all displays itself in our work.

We humans, who are part chimpanzee and mammal, are here to broaden the practice of compassion on this planet. Does this not explain why so many of our spiritual leaders — from Isaiah to Jesus, from Buddha to Lao Tzu, from Gandhi to Black Elk, from Chief Seattle to Martin Luther King, from Dorothy Day to Mother Theresa — were instructing us in one thing: How to be compassionate?

To be compassionate is to live out the truth of our interdependence. Compassion is not about feeling sorry for another. It is about so identifying with others that their joy is my joy and their pain is my pain, and consequently we do something about both. Compassion therefore leads to celebration on the one hand and to relieving pain and suffering on the other. “Compassion means justice,” Meister Eckhart said six centuries ago, and he was right.

Isn’t it time to wake up? Time is running out. Our species will not survive if we do not commit to sustainability in its many forms — not only solar-driven energy sources but also solar-driven (as distinct from reptilian-driven) consciousness. We need to learn to breathe in and out the gift of healthy sunlight (which is literally the air we breathe) and not take it for granted. We need to ground ourselves, connecting to the Earth from which we come and to which we shall all return.

(Even tho I don't agree with everything the article suggested,) I guess that the best way to choose "right" from "wrong" is to ask if your course of action benefits the human species, as a whole. Does a gov't'l policy entail compassion, within it? If not, then it encompasses a "reptilian" approach...nor is a first-step toward a system of gulags, compassionate.

(I'd even go so far as to claim that Bush's whole Administration has been a study in the exercise of the reptilian brain in action, but that's a subject more appropriate for the "Bush is..." thread)

Yes, policies that deal with terrorists can be both compassionate, and effective. To me, THAT is the "right" course of action.

More later...I haven't forgotten you, Grant.

dps
10-04-2006, 08:32 AM
Neil,

No matter how you much you rant and rave it boils down to two things.

1. If person next to you pulls out a knife and tries to slit your throat, you do what you have to to stop it or die.

2. To prevent this from happening again, you do what you have to or die.

deepsoup
10-04-2006, 08:43 AM
Yes, good and evil, right and wrong, all seem relative.
Hypocrisy is a bit more absolute though, isn't it? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd have thought that doing away with civil liberties in defence of 'freedom' was pretty self-evidently nonsensical.

Neil Mick
10-04-2006, 01:25 PM
Neil,

No matter how you much you rant and rave it boils down to two things.

1. If person next to you pulls out a knife and tries to slit your throat, you do what you have to to stop it or die.

2. To prevent this from happening again, you do what you have to or die.

David,

No matter how much you try to duck and avoid the central question it boils down to two things:

1. If you suspect a person next to you is about to pull out a knife: you're the "bad guy" if you make the first move, and that person was unarmed, or innocent.

2. If pressed, you will dance rings around answering the central question: "how do you determine who the terrorists are (or, if your terrorist-plan is working), when there is no gov't'l oversight" rather than just admit that you either don't care, or haven't a clue?

(or, to make it plain for you, since you seem unable to read the complete, first post:

2a. How do you determine if a (newly minted) dictatorship is succeeding in the war on terror, when you take away oversight, habeas corpus and the limits of torture? All you have, in the end: is their word that all is well: and as far as that being a good indicator of oversight, well...ehehehehehehe)

Neil Mick
10-04-2006, 01:32 PM
Hypocrisy is a bit more absolute though, isn't it? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd have thought that doing away with civil liberties in defence of 'freedom' was pretty self-evidently nonsensical.

True: total agreement. I think it's interesting that ALL leaders--right down to OBL--claim that they are "right...." that God's on "their" side.

But yeah: file "throwing out civil liberties, in defence of freedom," under such notions as "Destroying the World, in Order to Save It;" or "Tortured Rationale's For Power-Grabbing Potentates"

Neil Mick
10-04-2006, 01:58 PM
Hey Neil,

Believe you me I'm a huge supporter of taking the softer approach and NOT making enemies when you can make friends instead. I think it works 1000 more. It's basically a popularity contest. I'll just generalize saying good guys and bad guys refering to us and them, no need to point out the obvious holes in the argument of whos good and whos bad :)

Anyhow, I've seen our guys refuse to hand over prisoners to local police because the commander on the ground felt like the 'prisoner' would be exicuted if they did. Very good call on his part. Commanders not firing on a suspected enemy because it couldnt be confirmed that they were infact the enemy or because the enemy was surounded by civilians. The war is full of instances like that just don't make it to the news. It's not front page material.

Not everyone in an army is a heartless killer, even if said army is run by a lying mass-murderer, true enough. Nothing is cut and dried.

Heard someone say that occupations of countries never work and I believe it.

Yep. Can't think of one that ever did (except, maybe, 2: US occupation of the South, during Reconstruction; and US occupation of Japan, post-WW2. Both were more in the lines of "reconstruction" efforts, rather than expansionism).

I think wars like this won't be won by military force but by humanitarian aid and hgelping a country rebuild itself. Makes it undesirable to terrorists.
Whats important is having a strong and effectmilitary force in place to protect that countries citizens and it's rebuilders WHILE the country is getting back on their feet.

Yeah, agreed.

I agree giving someone laws that makes it okay for someone to disapear is garbage.

Good.

Missed the comment earlier, saying David didn't know where to find a terrorist or couldn't fnd one.
Their easy to find. One only needs walk down the street alone and they will come find you, knife and camera in hand.

:confused: "knife and camera...?" :confused:

What if they were shipped to you, en masse, to one of your terrorist gulags, with a note from Pakistan saying that these were all terrorists?

Perhaps, we should take a cue from the ultimate end of David's "logic:" and simply line them up along a ditch and pull the trigger (and remember: we ARE talking about women and children, in that shipment)? After all,

you do what you have to or die,

right? I mean, if you really don't care who's the terrorist or not; or whether or not their rights are respected: then why not cut out the middleman (the jailor), and just cut to the chase? After all,

Less terrorist = safer Americans

evileyes


So murdering 6million people could be considered being the good guys, just depending on what side your on?

All leaders rationalize that their cause is just. But as Sean said: hypocrisy and greed come into play.

The Japanese leader gave an eloquent and pretty speech about saving the Chinese people from the tyranny of their govt, shortly before they invaded, c. 1935. Time reveals the hypocrisy for what it really was.

Never liked that who 'just depends on what side your on' thing.
Evil deeds are evil deeds. Both sides in WW2 for example did some bad things. One side really went to town though.

I have some reservations about some of the things the Allies did in WW2, as well. But, you have to draw the line somewhere.

James Davis
10-04-2006, 03:40 PM
:confused: "knife and camera...?" :confused:


I think he was referring to people getting their heads cut off on the internet.

Neil Mick
10-04-2006, 03:45 PM
I think he was referring to people getting their heads cut off on the internet.

Oh (*scratches head*). Thanks for the clarification. ;)

Guilty Spark
10-05-2006, 09:39 AM
Yea I was referring for their love of cutting peoples heads off and getting it on camera.

In the end I think you'd much rather be a prisoner of the US then a prisoner of one of these guys, wouldn't you agree?
Prisoners should have rights (personally I think these guys SHOULD be considered prisoners of war and not combatants and all that other legal bull) but going to prison should never be beneficial. Roof over your head. Food, water, clothes, time to pray, sanitary items. That's a hell of a lot more than these guys get in the first place.
Obviously there is the loss of freedom and cases of abuse and other issues. Just a different perspective.

Neil i think we agree for the most part, you're stance is just from one extreme side of the fence and I'm closer to the middle perhaps?

Regarding getting a box of people labeled TERRORIST INSIDE, in that example no I wouldn't suggest passing judgment on them all, I doubt you'd find anyone on here who would.
For the sake of argument why wouldn't I? Because some of them will be wrongly accused and by finding out the truth you turn a potential enemy into an Allie or even neutral party. Leading to more information, ergo less allied casualties.

Hogan
10-05-2006, 10:43 AM
...In the end I think you'd much rather be a prisoner of the US then a prisoner of one of these guys, wouldn't you agree?....

But then you have the weight gain...(even after all that torture they are subjected to!)

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/10/04/rich_diet_making_many_guantanamo_detainees_fat/

(that story just makes me laugh)...

dps
10-05-2006, 11:49 AM
But then you have the weight gain...(even after all that torture they are subjected to!)

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/10/04/rich_diet_making_many_guantanamo_detainees_fat/

(that story just makes me laugh)...
Those bastards, torturing those poor terrorists ...oops suspected terrorists by giving them all they can eat. What form of torture will they think of next......conjugal rights.

dps
10-05-2006, 11:57 AM
Throw in some booze and gambling and it really will be Club Gitmo.

Lets see when terrorist get caught they go to Club Gitmo and if they get killed they got to paridise and get virgins.

Neil Mick
10-05-2006, 12:52 PM
Yea I was referring for their love of cutting peoples heads off and getting it on camera.

As opposed to our love of ferreting away innocent Canadian citizens to some dark tomb-like cell in Syria?

In the end I think you'd much rather be a prisoner of the US then a prisoner of one of these guys, wouldn't you agree?

Depends upon what I am accused of.

Prisoners should have rights (personally I think these guys SHOULD be considered prisoners of war and not combatants and all that other legal bull) but going to prison should never be beneficial. Roof over your head. Food, water, clothes, time to pray, sanitary items. That's a hell of a lot more than these guys get in the first place.

Not if "these guys" (and women, and children: don't forget...Gitmo DID house kids, too) had an involuntary home-address at Baghram, Gitmo, or Abu Ghraib. Remember, a significant number of them died, under the tender mercies of the US.

Obviously there is the loss of freedom and cases of abuse and other issues. Just a different perspective.

Yeah, the perspective is WAAY different, when you are the one, with our civil liberties yanked away.

Neil i think we agree for the most part, you're stance is just from one extreme side of the fence and I'm closer to the middle perhaps?

In a word (and, with respect): AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Riiight: my view is "extreme." Unfortunately (for your frame), my "extremist" views entail the Geneva Conventions, due process and regard for individual rights--no matter what you're accused. In other words, my "extreme" view happens to be the view of respect for international law.

If THAT's "extremist:" then I share my "extremism" with most of the civilized world.

Regarding getting a box of people labeled TERRORIST INSIDE, in that example no I wouldn't suggest passing judgment on them all, I doubt you'd find anyone on here who would.

Wrong again: apparently, David Skaggs is all ready to pass judgement on these "terrorists," if we can take his numerous posts arguing for summary jail-time without trial at face value.

For the sake of argument why wouldn't I? Because some of them will be wrongly accused and by finding out the truth you turn a potential enemy into an Allie or even neutral party. Leading to more information, ergo less allied casualties.

Well, we're in agreement on that score, at least.

Neil Mick
10-05-2006, 01:18 PM
re: http://www.boston.com/news/world/ar..._detainees_fat/

Those bastards, torturing those poor terrorists ...oops suspected terrorists by giving them all they can eat. What form of torture will they think of next......conjugal rights.

This is why I have John on ignore: short on documentation, long on childish insult (not displayed yet in this thread, but give him enough
rope...).

Now, let's see: John last surfaced around the time of the Gitmo Quran defacements; suggesting that the Gitmo prisoner testimonies could not be believed. And then, guess what! :eek: Turns out they were telling the truth: the Pentagon later admitted it.

Surprise, surprise: the Pentagon lied in an attempt at damage-control.

And now: we have Johnny-boy surfacing yet again: with another puff-piece about how good things are, for those eevel fellows safely housed in Gitmo.

Well, let's look at the numerous sources quoted in the story: there's

Navy Commander Robert Durand, spokesman for the detention facilities at Guantanamo, a Navy base in southeast Cuba;

and then there's um...um...

hmm...no one else mentioned.

Oh yeah! We can SURE believe THIS guy: he'd NEVER lie about the place where he WORKS!

File this piece of spin under the same file as the kids claiming Gitmo was "GREAT!" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1163435,00.html) after they were freed. :rolleyes:

Yeah, life was great for the kids in Camp Iguana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Iguana)...unless you were housed with the adults.

Three children who had been detained with adults, and treated and interrogated as if they were adults, at the Bagram Collection Point were provided with more humane conditions at Camp Iguana. But half a dozen teenagers who should have been considered minors even by the DoD's more stringent standards were not only detained with adults, and not provided with schooling, but reported being punished by long periods in isolation and subjected to abusive interrogation.

Throw in some booze and gambling and it really will be Club Gitmo.

Lets see when terrorist get caught they go to Club Gitmo and if they get killed they got to paridise and get virgins.

Coming from a man whose posts suggest that he really doesn't care who is innocent or guilty: just so long as we "git dem terrerests--" this heartfelt sentiment of concern for the safety of innocents means so much, I'm sure...ahem. :rolleyes:

Hogan
10-05-2006, 01:53 PM
This is why I have John on ignore: short on documentation, long on childish insult (not displayed yet in this thread, but give him enough
rope...).

Ummm, Mickey Boy - you are quoting someone that is not me.... pay attention next time.

And if claim to have me on ignore, then pls be adult enough to not speak of me...

Enslin
10-05-2006, 03:01 PM
Hi Neil,

Regarding your views on the new legislation I agree with you. It is a sad day when freedom is lost. It unfortunately did not start with this legislation - this is the consequence of many years, decades of philosophical apathy. Under “patriotism” the American citizens have destroyed their own rights and with it liberty, freedom and justice.

It is good to see some people still recognise such fundamental principles as freedom.

On speaking out – the result of 9/11 was that every person who guarded freedom was called a terrorist sympathiser and un-patriotic. People want their rights protected at the cost of everybody else’s rights. I thought American patriotism stood for Freedom for all, for the people and by the people. It seems the “people” are screwing themselves.

The measure of a man is how he treats others when he holds the sceptre of power, and a nation is merely an extension of the dominant beliefs of individuals. In this case Americans seem to think having a statue of Liberty, guarantees their liberty.

I am in no means bashing Americans; this is a world phenomena. Unfortunately America was the last beacon of freedom. Now we will have to start from scratch.

Freedom wasn’t lost to terrorists; it was lost to the defenders of that freedom. It was a self-inflicted wound – and by no means an accident.

I for one, no longer support the despots in government(s). I have started and will continue my campaign against the power mongers in charge of “democracy”. They no longer have my silence, nor my compliance!

Freedom Forever!

James Davis
10-05-2006, 03:38 PM
Ummm, Mickey Boy - you are quoting someone that is not me.... pay attention next time.

And if claim to have me on ignore, then pls be adult enough to not speak of me...
I think it's because you provided the link, John.

Hey, Neil. If we can't take the word of Guantanamo's spokesman, who's word do we believe? Should we strap everybody to polygraph machines, or do we just accept the statements of those who say what we want to hear?

It doesn't matter what kind of food they serve at Gitmo, what kind of gloves they wear when handling prisoners' holy books, or how carefully they walk on eggshells; it won't change what the world thinks of us. All of the monetary and military aid in the world hasn't managed to do that.

deepsoup
10-05-2006, 07:03 PM
Hey, Neil. If we can't take the word of Guantanamo's spokesman, who's word do we believe?
We could take the word of international UN inspectors perhaps, if they weren't denied access. Moazzem Begg speaks very eloquently, I find him quite convincing, though I'm sure you wouldn't.
If its still up, that BBC link I posted before has some interesting stuff.

Guilty Spark
10-05-2006, 07:54 PM
As opposed to our love of ferreting away innocent Canadian citizens to some dark tomb-like cell in Syria?

I'm not too sure how often that happens. I know the head chopper videos appear quite often.

Depends upon what I am accused of.
I hope not my friend. If your their prisoner, chances are regardless of what 'infidel' crime you're accused of their going to simply kill you anyways. (and i'm still planning on taking a tour out west ;) )
Remember that comment I made about terrorists attacking a french oil tanker and when questioned aboutit (as france was directly opposed to bushes views, if you were going to avoid attacking someone it would be france) the terrorist said thats okay, their all infidels anyways. If you think OUR system is bad heh

In a word (and, with respect): AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Riiight: my view is "extreme." Unfortunately (for your frame), my "extremist" views entail the Geneva Conventions
Putyour sword away brother :)
Not citing you as an extremest in a negitive nutbar perspective. I just mean that your fairly well set in your views. It's easy to guess exactly where you stand on (related) issues, thats all.
I think it just makes it harder for you to try and see the argument from the other side of the fence. (something which I think really helps one understand their own argument and make stronger defenses of it)

Speaking for most of the civilized population is quite a feat. I think you might be putting too much faith in that. Lots of civilized people i've seen, at protests as example, hold up signs suggesting we nuke the middle east killing everyone OR we cut peoples heads off for any number of offenses.
Where are all these peaceful people and why aren't they doing more to stop the nutbars?
Considering we vote our leaders in office does that suggest 51% of the US isn't civilized? Having agreed with bush?

dps
10-05-2006, 08:54 PM
Neil,
Which website do you post on to complain about the treatment of prisoners of war, detainees, illegal combatants, etc that the organizations listed below have.

* Abu Sayyaf (1991-present; Islamist separatists; the Philippines)
o Based in the southern islands of Jolo, Basilan, and Mindanao.
o Branched off of the Moro National Liberation Front.
o Allegedly partnered with Jemaah Islamiyah and Al-Qaeda.
* Aden-Abyan Islamic Army (Yemen)
* Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Late 1970s-present; Islamists; Egypt)
o Seeks to establish Islamist state in Egypt. Usually targets secular establishments, government buildings, police, the military, minorities, tourists, and "morally offensive" buildings.
* Armed Islamic Group (1992-present; Islamists; Algeria)
o Seeks to establish Islamist state in Algeria. Began operations in 1992 after the Algerian government ignored election results that gave victory to Islamist political parties.
* Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades
* Ansar al-Islam (December 2001-present; Islamists; Iraq)
o In Arabic, "Supporters of Islam."
o Also known as "Partisans of Islam or Helpers of Islam."
* Al-Qaeda (1988-present; Islamists; Afghanistan, Pakistan, and worldwide)
o In Arabic, "the foundation" or "the base."
o Also known as Qa‘idat al-Jihad, Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places, World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, Islamic Salvation Foundation, and the Osama bin Laden Network.
o Related: Alneda (former web site), As-Sahab (affiliated public relations organization),
o Cells: Buffalo six, Hamburg cell,
* Asbat al-Ansar (early 1990s-present; Lebanese Sunni Islamists; southern Lebanon)
o In Arabic, "the League of the Followers."
o Acronym for "Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya," or Islamic Resistance Movement.
* Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'al-Jihad/Al-Qaeda in Iraq - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Sunni network, operating in Iraq
o on U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations
* Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement - al-Qaeda linked separatist group in China's Xinjiang Autonomous Region aiming to establish an Islamic state. Banned by China, along with related groups Eastern Turkistan Liberation Organisation, World Uighur Youth Congress and East Turkistan Information Center [2]
* Egyptian Islamic Jihad - Egypt (active since the late 1970s)
* Hamas - Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip. Listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Israel, and the United States
* Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM) - Pakistan and Kashmir
* Hezbollah - Lebanon; Regarded a terrorist group by United States, Isreal, and England.
* Hizbul Mujahideen - Pakistan and Kashmir
* Hofstad Network - Netherlands
* Islamic Front for the Liberation of Bahrain - Defunct
* Islamic Movement of Central Asia - Central Asia
* Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan - Uzbekistan
* Jaish-e-Mohammed - Pakistan
* Jaish Ansar al-Sunna - Iraq
* Jemaah Islamiyah - Southeast Asia
* Jihad Rite - Australia (linked with Al Qaeda. Founded in 2001)
* Lashkar-e-Jhangvi - Pakistan
* Lashkar-e-Toiba - Pakistan
* Lord's Resistance Army Christian/Pagan/Muslim terrorist group that operates in northern Uganda, it seeks to overthrow the Ugandan government and create a country based on the ten commandments.[10]
* Maktab al-Khadamat - Afghanistan - Defunct
* Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group - Morocco and Spain
* Moro Islamic Liberation Front - (Islamic separatists; the Philippines)
* Muslim Brotherhood - international
* Palestinian Islamic Jihad - Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip
* People Against Gangsterism and Drugs - South Africa
* Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat - Algeria
* Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan - Pakistan
* Takfir wal-Hijra - Egypt/Sudan/Algeria
* Kurdish-Hizbullah - Turkey

Neil Mick
10-05-2006, 10:35 PM
My time is short, so I can only answer one post.

Neil,
Which website do you post on to complain about the treatment of prisoners of war, detainees, illegal combatants, etc that the organizations listed below

Ooh, David! You sure showed ME!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

(*checking my passport*) Noo...it appears that my tax-dollars aren't supporting illegal treatment of detainee's in any of THESE orgs and countries (at least, insofar as I know). Nor, am I a citizen of listed countries...so, I might suggest that your point is...irrelevant?

In a word...NEXT!

Hogan
10-06-2006, 07:22 AM
I think it's because you provided the link, John.

Hey, Neil. If we can't take the word of Guantanamo's spokesman, who's word do we believe? Should we strap everybody to polygraph machines, or do we just accept the statements of those who say what we want to hear?

It doesn't matter what kind of food they serve at Gitmo, what kind of gloves they wear when handling prisoners' holy books, or how carefully they walk on eggshells; it won't change what the world thinks of us. All of the monetary and military aid in the world hasn't managed to do that.

Yeah, I provide documentation from the Boston Globe and he says:
This is why I have John on ignore: short on documentation, long on childish insult (not displayed yet in this thread, but give him enough

And where was the childish insult, other than the insult from Neil? He claims to have me on ignore, yet know wether or not I have been "childish" or not in this thread - he seems to like to insult people willy nilly. He's a class act, that Mickey Boy; his girlfriend (ooops, sorry, or boyfriend - don't want to assume in this PC age) must be proud.

dps
10-06-2006, 07:56 AM
Neil,

Your words support them in what they do.

Mike Sigman
10-06-2006, 08:03 AM
(*checking my passport*) Noo...it appears that my tax-dollars aren't supporting illegal treatment of detainee's in any of THESE orgs and countries (at least, insofar as I know). Nor, am I a citizen of listed countries...so, I might suggest that your point is...irrelevant?in a word...NEXT!In other words, if you don't want to say something anti-American, Neil doesn't want to discuss it.... please stay on topic, Neil's only topic: hate America.

Mike

dps
10-06-2006, 08:23 AM
A one trick pony.

James Davis
10-06-2006, 10:28 AM
I find him quite convincing, though I'm sure you wouldn't.

I'm sure that you hate puppies and the elderly. :D

Seriously, Sean. Have I posted something that made me seem close-minded? I try not to be. I do have my own opinions about world events, based on listening to liberal and conservative sources. Both sides are guilty of telling the truth, but not the whole truth. Everybody seems to intentionally leave something out to make a certain political party more appealing/appalling.

I know people that are liberals and conservatives, and they choose their political parties and representatives with good and honorable intentions; They just disagree about how to go about changing things. There's something wrong with both parties in our country; if that weren't true, elections wouldn't be so close.

It's when we make assumptions about other people that things get out of hand.

deepsoup
10-06-2006, 02:30 PM
I'm sure that you hate puppies and the elderly. :D
Ouch, touche!
Fair point, I can only apologise, looks like I owe you a beer. :)

James Davis
10-06-2006, 03:59 PM
Ouch, touche!
Fair point, I can only apologise, looks like I owe you a beer. :)
Apology accepted. Have a good weekend. :)

Neil Mick
10-06-2006, 06:46 PM
Neil,

Your words support them in what they do.

Uh huh. And, my bathroom harbours Communists. I've tried washing, rinsing, scrubbing: and they STILL won't come out! :p

You have a long, long way to go, to show how my "words" somehow support the actions of terrorists.

Till then: I'll just file your post under the title, "the ten silliest things I am accused of, online" (#1 being, of course: "anti-American")

Neil Mick
10-06-2006, 07:05 PM
And now, back to responding to posts that take the topic a little more seriously.

As opposed to our love of ferreting away innocent Canadian citizens to some dark tomb-like cell in Syria?

I'm not too sure how often that happens. I know the head chopper videos appear quite often.

Look, Grant: I don't have the figures available to document how many people we've wrongfully charged, tortured, and killed. AFAIK, that information is classified.

I also don't know how many people were captured by extremist groups in Iraq and the ME, and later let go. I DO know that there have been a few. But, your question suggests an "us/them" paradigm, which I do not acknowledge.

ANYONE who is wrongfully accused of something, jailed and tortured, perhaps killed, is probably not sitting there in his cell thinking, "Oh well, at least I'm not in the hands of extremists who will cut my head off, tomorrow."

Wrongful imprisonment and torture is simply that...wrong. Doesn't matter what the nationality or religion of the jailors, it's still wrong.

Worse, torture puts us on the same level as the extremists. We used to be a nation where we could point to a dictatorship and decry its secret detentions, its death squads, its network of gulags. We're not to the point of employing death squads (altho we certainly have, to our shame, supported regimes with death squads (see El Salvador, c. 1980's))' but we are in that continuum.

To me, that is where you draw the line btw the "good" guys, and the "bad." And so, IMO: your question as to whom I would prefer to have as a jailor, is irrelevant. What difference does it make, if I am murdered during interrogation, what nationality my jailors are?

I hope not my friend. If your their prisoner, chances are regardless of what 'infidel' crime you're accused of their going to simply kill you anyways. (and i'm still planning on taking a tour out west ;)

Not necessarily: as I mentioned, extremist groups HAVE released their kidnapped victims, unharmed.


Remember that comment I made about terrorists attacking a french oil tanker and when questioned aboutit (as france was directly opposed to bushes views, if you were going to avoid attacking someone it would be france) the terrorist said thats okay, their all infidels anyways. If you think OUR system is bad heh

OK, if they're all about "hating freedom:" then tell me, why hasn't Canada been targeted by terrorists? No, it's not about hating freedom (or infidels): it's about payback for past sins.


Putyour sword away brother :)
Not citing you as an extremest in a negitive nutbar perspective. I just mean that your fairly well set in your views. It's easy to guess exactly where you stand on (related) issues, thats all.

Oh, OK. But, I don't consider my views extremist. NOR, do I necessarily agree with EVERYTHING propounded by the Left.

I think it just makes it harder for you to try and see the argument from the other side of the fence. (something which I think really helps one understand their own argument and make stronger defenses of it)

Not at all. I think I understand the argument quite well. If we're talking about the views that, say, David Skaggs has propounded here--then we're talking about a perspective coming from a fear-based paradigm...."get them before they get you."

I come at it from the other side: from a view of compassion (not to be confused with "appeasement").

Speaking for most of the civilized population is quite a feat. I think you might be putting too much faith in that. Lots of civilized people i've seen, at protests as example, hold up signs suggesting we nuke the middle east killing everyone OR we cut peoples heads off for any number of offenses.
Where are all these peaceful people and why aren't they doing more to stop the nutbars?

Last I looked, thousands of them were out on the streets, yesterday: in cities all over the world. And, I have never seen a protest sign suggesting that we "nuke them all." (lucky for me)

Considering we vote our leaders in office does that suggest 51% of the US isn't civilized? Having agreed with bush?

Now that's a conversation for a whole other thread. But briefly:

1. Many of the people that voted for Bush didn't do so out of agreement: they were simply unconvinced by Kerry (big surprise).
2. There is ample empirical and direct evidence to suggest that the '04 election was rigged, as was the '00 election. Still, a sizeable block of people DID vote for Bush, certainly.
3. If we, as a nation, decide to dispense with habeas corpus and transparency in gov't: well, yes, I'd say that that DOES make us an "uncivilized" nation.

It all depends upon your definition of "uncivilized." Are fascist regimes "uncivilized?" Personally, I think so.

Neil Mick
10-06-2006, 07:09 PM
Hey, Neil. If we can't take the word of Guantanamo's spokesman, who's word do we believe? Should we strap everybody to polygraph machines, or do we just accept the statements of those who say what we want to hear?

It doesn't matter what kind of food they serve at Gitmo, what kind of gloves they wear when handling prisoners' holy books, or how carefully they walk on eggshells; it won't change what the world thinks of us. All of the monetary and military aid in the world hasn't managed to do that.

We could take the word of international UN inspectors perhaps, if they weren't denied access.

James: I'm going with Sean's answer. How about they let in a Red Cross rep and we get the full story from an unbiased source? Until then, I'd keep my pile of salt handy, the next time one of these puff-pieces emerges, if I were you.

After all, why believe an organization (the Pentagon) which openly admits to lying to the press?


It's when we make assumptions about other people that things get out of hand.

Yes, I second that. I find you quite openminded in fora...for a Republican... ;)

Neil Mick
10-06-2006, 07:25 PM
One more thing:


It doesn't matter what kind of food they serve at Gitmo, what kind of gloves they wear when handling prisoners' holy books, or how carefully they walk on eggshells; it won't change what the world thinks of us. All of the monetary and military aid in the world hasn't managed to do that.

This statement belies reality. It's simply untrue. Did you know that there was an official call in Iran for prayer for the victims of 9-11, after the attacks?

The US has lost a lot of credibility, since '03. The world made itself quite clear that it didn't want the US to resolve the "Iraqi problem," with a military invasion. The Bush Regime declared the UN irrelevant (remember?); and when things went South, came crawling back, begging for assistance.

Perhaps, we'd get a lot more goodwill from the world if we'd stop giving military aid to despotic regimes, just to protect "our" interests. It's certainly not a cure-all: but its a good start.

Neil Mick
10-06-2006, 07:31 PM
Hi Neil,

Regarding your views on the new legislation I agree with you. It is a sad day when freedom is lost. It unfortunately did not start with this legislation - this is the consequence of many years, decades of philosophical apathy. Under "patriotism" the American citizens have destroyed their own rights and with it liberty, freedom and justice.

Adam,

You're absolutely right.

It is good to see some people still recognise such fundamental principles as freedom.

Apparently, some ppl (posting here) don't.

On speaking out -- the result of 9/11 was that every person who guarded freedom was called a terrorist sympathiser and un-patriotic. People want their rights protected at the cost of everybody else's rights. I thought American patriotism stood for Freedom for all, for the people and by the people. It seems the "people" are screwing themselves.

The measure of a man is how he treats others when he holds the sceptre of power, and a nation is merely an extension of the dominant beliefs of individuals. In this case Americans seem to think having a statue of Liberty, guarantees their liberty.

I am in no means bashing Americans; this is a world phenomena. Unfortunately America was the last beacon of freedom. Now we will have to start from scratch.

Yes, you've put your finger on it, precisely. We USED to be a nation where all other nations would look up to, and admire. Now, the only thing left for other nations to admire, is our military might.

Freedom wasn't lost to terrorists; it was lost to the defenders of that freedom. It was a self-inflicted wound -- and by no means an accident.

I for one, no longer support the despots in government(s). I have started and will continue my campaign against the power mongers in charge of "democracy". They no longer have my silence, nor my compliance!

Freedom Forever!

Excellent. Keep the faith! :cool:

Guilty Spark
10-08-2006, 03:59 AM
why hasn't Canada been targeted by terrorists?

We just lost our 40th soldier here in Afghanistan, I consider that being targeted by terrorists.
Or do you mean Canada as a physical country? A few years back CSIS (our CIA) put out a report saying Canada had the highest terrorist activity in the world. Thats not planting bombs and IEDs mind you, but groups and cells making money and sending it 'home'. Recruiting people 'for the cause'. Why would they want to shit where they eat as the saying goes?

Canada has not been physically attacked like the US (though we have caught a few people and foiled some plans) but our citizens and soldiers are deffinatly targeted. A guy I knew was killed along with 3 others while handing out candy to children and trying to rebuild a war-ravaged area. Trying to rebuild the country. (Regardless of the parties who ruined it in the first place)

Opens up the argument should we be here etc.. etc.. etc...
To that I would argue I think (wait, know) the people here appriciate (now) being allowed to have a shaved face if they want. Flying kites ISN'T illegal, nor is singing or dancing. (Telling jokes in public too if I recall). Women are allowed to vote and having makeup on or painted nails won't result in instant (and brutal) punishment.
THAT my friends, is freedom. Giving people a choice.

Think I've hit my limit for this thread (and indeed, many others of the same nature).
Cheers and have a safe (Canadian) thanksgiving ;)

Moses
10-08-2006, 01:41 PM
This is fun, how dose one deal w/ such ideology

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C46DA5C1-D200-48E6-8B24-76EE739EC243,frameless.htm

Neil Mick
10-08-2006, 03:10 PM
We just lost our 40th soldier here in Afghanistan, I consider that being targeted by terrorists.

Soldiers, occupying a foreign country, is not "targeting Canada."

Or do you mean Canada as a physical country?

The physical country, or its citizens, yes. Sorry, but IMO: a soldier is a representative of your government, not your people... should have made that clearer.

But, actions against soldiers can be seen as statements against the gov't (not that I approve, of course), and not, technically, terrorism.

A few years back CSIS (our CIA) put out a report saying Canada had the highest terrorist activity in the world. Thats not planting bombs and IEDs mind you, but groups and cells making money and sending it 'home'. Recruiting people 'for the cause'. Why would they want to shit where they eat as the saying goes?

Interesting point. Well then, it does bring up the question: why isn't the US invading Canada? :straightf

Canada has not been physically attacked like the US (though we have caught a few people and foiled some plans) but our citizens and soldiers are deffinatly targeted. A guy I knew was killed along with 3 others while handing out candy to children and trying to rebuild a war-ravaged area. Trying to rebuild the country. (Regardless of the parties who ruined it in the first place)

Again, an action against your gov't...not your civilian populace.

Opens up the argument should we be here etc.. etc.. etc...
To that I would argue I think (wait, know) the people here appriciate (now) being allowed to have a shaved face if they want. Flying kites ISN'T illegal, nor is singing or dancing. (Telling jokes in public too if I recall). Women are allowed to vote and having makeup on or painted nails won't result in instant (and brutal) punishment.
THAT my friends, is freedom. Giving people a choice.

OK, sure: all agreed. But, this is the topic of a whole other thread. But, I can say, briefly, that there is more to it, here: than simply giving ppl freedom.

Of course they want democracy over a balkanized Feudal-system. Anyone would. But, your observation ignores the situation on the ground, at present.

Rather than go into it, I'll just provide the link:

Bleeding Afghanistan (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/06/1350253)

And what the U.S. did in those five years was that it refused to allow the expansion of peacekeeping troops from Kabul to the rest of the country, saying that it would interfere with the so-called hunt for Taliban and al-Qaeda, and it re-empowered these misogynist and fundamentalist warlords in the northern part of the country and allowed them to take part in government.

Now, certainly on paper, women are more equal to men than they were before, but in practical terms, very little has actually changed in Afghanistan for women. There's increased sexual and domestic violence against women. Women parliamentarians are harassed and threatened.

And now, with its operations in the southern part of the country being extremely aggressive, targeting Afghans, rounding them up, brutalizing them, torturing them, the U.S. has actually created much more resentment against it than it needed to. There was actually some goodwill that the Afghan people had. The Afghans were willing to tolerate some foreign presence in Afghanistan in order to see if the Taliban or the warlords would be really defeated, would be purged from their country. The U.S. has squandered that goodwill with its brutal tactics in Afghanistan. And now, the Taliban, or some version of the Taliban, the neo-Taliban, as they’re being called, are back in the south. And so, Afghanistan is actually worse off than it was just a couple of years ago.

Think I've hit my limit for this thread (and indeed, many others of the same nature).
Cheers and have a safe (Canadian) thanksgiving ;)

Sorry to hear that. Feel free to come back for a chat sometime.

Neil Mick
10-08-2006, 03:20 PM
This is fun, how dose one deal w/ such ideology

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C46DA5C1-D200-48E6-8B24-76EE739EC243,frameless.htm

Care to elaborate? I'm not sure I understand... :confused:

Moses
10-08-2006, 03:46 PM
Just pointing out while we discuss our domestic & foreign polices, I believe it is important to remember that our situation is not a difference of political views between countries, but rather of differing ideologies. One of which makes it a point to demonstrate that there is no negotiating, or compromising w/ the other. The afore mentioned link is just an example of the complexity the world faces.

Neil Mick
10-08-2006, 05:22 PM
Just pointing out while we discuss our domestic & foreign polices, I believe it is important to remember that our situation is not a difference of political views between countries, but rather of differing ideologies.

No, I don't think so. IMO, "ideological differences" are not a determing factor. Certainly, ideology plays into the whole calculus of ME politics, but not as some "war of cultures."

The "war on terror," should really be called "the violent occupation and bombing of foreign countries." Sure, ideology gets stirred into the evil witches' brew, but the conflict is more about US plans for expansion.

Is Iran the next stop of the war on terror? Obviously it is, but it's a stretch to call W's evil bombing plans, a part of the "war on terror," and thus a "war of cultures."

But don't worry: btw now and 2008, I'm sure that we'll be hearing some rationale for it all, explaining how the bombing of Iran is a "'vital part of the war on terror.'" :hypno:

One of which makes it a point to demonstrate that there is no negotiating, or compromising w/ the other. The afore mentioned link is just an example of the complexity the world faces.

Yes, the situation is complex. But, to suggest that there is no negotiation is a misnomer. It's true, tho: Arab extremist factions are getting a louder voice, than previously, in the Arab community. Obviously, this is largely due to the US occupation of Iraq: the recent NIE proves this.

Nor, do Arabs have a monopoly on extremism. There are radical Christian leaders on "our" side, openly advocating assassination, and holy wars.

Still, our relationship with the Saudi's doesn't seem to be suffering, does it? So, that would suggest that there's a lot more going on, than a simple clash of ideologies.

Apologies if I rambled on too long... :blush:

Neil Mick
10-08-2006, 05:48 PM
I'll just provide the link:

"Bleeding Afghanistan"
And now, with its operations in the southern part of the country being extremely aggressive, targeting Afghans, rounding them up, brutalizing them, torturing them, the U.S. has actually created much more resentment against it than it needed to.



Which bring me back to the point of the thread.

This bill was not made into law to make American's safer. It was made into law to cover what has been done, already: to the prisoners at Guantanamo, and Baghram, and a half-dozen other places, scattered around Afghanistan.

It made these terrible things done to prisoners. Prisoners who have been sitting in jail ...who were rounded up, some of them in mass-arrests...whose appeals for habeas are now quashed...all that will be made legal.

This bill was not written to protect us, in the event of a future attack: it was written to protect BushCo from warcrime litigation.

And no: no one currently posting in this thread has proven how torture works, or could be used as a rationale for replacement of habeas. The idea, frankly: is sickening, and that there are people out there who think that it will make them safer, astounds me in their naivete and shortsightedness.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Update: the CCR filed the first legal challenge (http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=ZjQ6uNAGGI&Content=850) to the MCA:

On October 2, 2006, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) announced that it had filed the first new legal challenges to key provisions of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) passed by Congress last week. CCR filed a habeas petition on behalf of 25 detainees held at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan who have been detained without charge or trial. Mohammed v. Rumsfeld directly contests the MCA's denial of due process to non-citizens held in U.S. custody.


There are an estimated 500 men detained in U.S. custody at Bagram. Though some have been held for years, none of these men has ever received a hearing of any sort. Bagram has been the site of notorious examples of abuse - including abuses that led to the December 2002 deaths of two Afghan detainees.

CCR Staff Attorney Gitanjali Gutierrez said: "Bagram should be synonymous with Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. These are abusive environments where the rights we all hold dear are regularly violated. Habeas is the only chance the men there have of ever responding to the allegations against them and demanding accountability for their treatment in court."

Guilty Spark
10-09-2006, 05:17 AM
Interesting point. Well then, it does bring up the question: why isn't the US invading Canada?

Maybe you guys learned your lesson the last time you tried that ;)

Cheers

Neil Mick
10-09-2006, 11:39 AM
Maybe you guys learned your lesson the last time you tried that ;)

Cheers

Nah...that couldn't be it. Our collective memory only goes back as far as WW2... ;)

Ron Tisdale
10-09-2006, 12:33 PM
Maybe you guys learned your lesson the last time you tried that ;)

Cheers
When was that exactly....the French/Indian war??? ;)

Best,
Ron (scratching his head...thinking hard...) :hypno:

Hogan
10-09-2006, 01:02 PM
We tried to invade, and they send us Celin Dion.

I think they won....

James Davis
10-09-2006, 03:39 PM
Maybe you guys learned your lesson the last time you tried that ;)

Cheers
It's cold up there, and grizzley bears are hard to enslave. :)

Neil Mick
10-11-2006, 01:26 PM
Olbermann channels Jon Stewart! Wow!

The death of habeas corpus (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15220450/)

Neil Mick
10-18-2006, 12:21 AM
Hooray! Bush signed this nadir for America into law today, clearing the impediments to his pointing a finger at someone, and throwing away the key, without that person even having the decency of a trial.

Do you feel safer now? :disgust:

Neil Mick
10-18-2006, 12:39 PM
Yep, no time like the present, to make sure that we are safe, from dem eevel terrorists:

Bush Signs Tough Rules on Detainees (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-detain18oct18,1,7213829.story?ctrack=1&cset=true)

The Justice Department moved swiftly to enforce one of the law's most controversial provisions. Within two hours of the signing ceremony, department lawyers notified the U.S. Appeals Court in Washington that the new law eliminated federal court jurisdiction over dozens of lawsuits filed on behalf of prisoners held at U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.