Should the Pope apologize??

[sodaseller]

So, we're back to the same question. What reason does the captured terrorist have to give up information on his buddies? I agree that torture is out, they aren't afraid to die, you can't even threaten their families because to die in jihad is the ultimate fast pass to eternal joy.
In order to get information, the criminal either has to have fear that something bad will happen or expectation that something good will happen. I'm not ready to give a terrorist any kind of goodies for information, because I don't trust them.



Can you give me a link for that? I haven't seen any info on that in the Times or CNN. I've seen opinions, but not any hard evidence. I don't trust opinions from left or right.

Most at Abyu Gharib were locals. Ditto with Bagram. The most notorious example is this one that Jaenne D'Arc collected te hlinks and summarized on, many of which are no longer active

http://bodyandsoul.typepad.com/blog/2005/05/most_of_whats_i.html

Check out the Taguba and Schmidt reports also

 

[Fitswimmer]

Most at Abyu Gharib were locals. Ditto with Bagram. The most notorious example is this one that Jaenne D'Arc collected te hlinks and summarized on, many of which are no longer active

Thanks for the link. How I missed the NYT article I have no idea, unless it came out when I was in WDW!

I think some small part of the blame must rest with the tactics of the terrorists. My friend's daughter spent 2 tours in Iraq with the Army and she told us that the hardest part is that to stay safe you have to look at everyone as an enemy. They strap bombs to kids, put pregnant women in suicide car bombs and create an environment where our soldiers must assume everyone is the enemy or put themselves in mortal danger. Then, there are the incidents after an American or other Westerner is killed, the desecration of the bodies is designed to enrage beyond rational thought. Couple all that with ambiguous direction about what is and is not permitted for interrogation and the result is atrocities.

 

[LuvDuke]

The straw man being brought up here is that cohersive techniques don't work, or that you can get the same (or better) information by using the kind of interogations we see on Law & Order. That's the approach that some have taken to avoid having to grapple with tough, real world decisions. Just deny that it works, and then you never have to worry about it again.

Now LuvDuke has introduced another straw man, that these people:




have come out and said we shouldn't use cohersive techniques. That is false. They've said we shouldn't amend the Geneva Convention. So, we're left with all these murky definitions and no one, in this day and age would want to guess how a future judge and jury might interpret or misinterpret a given set of circumstances.

John McCain has said we should have the program. But he wants to dump the legal and moral implications onto the mid-level operational guys who have to extract information from suicidal fanatics. The CIA guys are refusing to be set up as the fall guys.

The Geneva Convention treaty was good enough for every president from Truman to Clinton and it's not good enough for this ***-clown in the WH because it doesn't cover his *** retroactively. Bush needs to redefine the "murky language" that no other president has had a problem with, in the 57 year history of the Geneva Convention.

The question is why and here's the answer: Bush needs to redefine the "murky language" because he's made some big time torture/rendition mistakes that are about to be revealed by the Red Cross when they visit the "Guantanamo 14". What Bush needs is his water carriers in Congress and people like you to peddle it as being some kind of a clarification when the realilty is, it's nothing more that Bush *** covering at it's worst. Once again, Bush is tryng to cover his *** using the faces of the CIA and the military.

 

[sodaseller]

Thanks for the link. How I missed the NYT article I have no idea, unless it came out when I was in WDW!

I think some small part of the blame must rest with the tactics of the terrorists. My friend's daughter spent 2 tours in Iraq with the Army and she told us that the hardest part is that to stay safe you have to look at everyone as an enemy. They strap bombs to kids, put pregnant women in suicide car bombs and create an environment where our soldiers must assume everyone is the enemy or put themselves in mortal danger. Then, there are the incidents after an American or other Westerner is killed, the desecration of the bodies is designed to enrage beyond rational thought. Couple all that with ambiguous direction about what is and is not permitted for interrogation and the result is atrocities.

All that is certainly true, and their tactics to this point are not accidental. I woudl not wante to be tested as our troops are. But it would also happen far less if we didn't seem to condone it from the top

 

[Fitswimmer]

All that is certainly true, and their tactics to this point are not accidental. I woudl not wante to be tested as our troops are. But it would also happen far less if we didn't seem to condone it from the top

Didn't the Black Hawk Down incident happen prior to Iraq? Suicide bombs strapped to young women and kids are nothing new either-ask the Israelis. There were enough atrocities being committed in Bosnia for us to go in there, and the attack at the school in Russia wasn't predicated on US prisoner treatment.

We can't repay atrocity for atrocity, that's abhorrent. However, we can't absolve the terrorists of their sins because of ours.

 

[beachblanket]

 

[sodaseller]

Didn't the Black Hawk Down incident happen prior to Iraq? Suicide bombs strapped to young women and kids are nothing new either-ask the Israelis. There were enough atrocities being committed in Bosnia for us to go in there, and the attack at the school in Russia wasn't predicated on US prisoner treatment.

We can't repay atrocity for atrocity, that's abhorrent. However, we can't absolve the terrorists of their sins because of ours.

Agree 100%. If my post sounded otherwise, that was in error. In fact, they try to elicit civilian atrocities are part of their strategy. But we also acted abhorrently to some captives well within our control.

 

[beachblanket]

 

[Teejay32]

The Geneva Convention treaty was good enough for every president from Truman to Clinton and it's not good enough for this ***-clown in the WH because it doesn't cover his *** retroactively. Bush needs to redefine the "murky language" that no other president has had a problem with, in the 57 year history of the Geneva Convention.

I totally disagree. I can't remember in my lifetime another period where threats to us were internal as much as external, and intelligence from individual suspects was so crucial. Extraordinary rendition predates the Bush administration...that would have been the time to clarify language in the Geneva Convention, in Congress, but it was not done. This says more to me about emerging and evolving threats than Presidents covering their butts.

 

[LuvDuke]

I totally disagree. I can't remember in my lifetime another period where threats to us were internal as much as external, and intelligence from individual suspects was so crucial. Extraordinary rendition predates the Bush administration...that would have been the time to clarify language in the Geneva Convention, in Congress, but it was not done. This says more to me about emerging and evolving threats than Presidents covering their butts.

Where are you getting your facts? Extraordinary rendition does NOT predate the Bush administration.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6

The Clinton administration's policy of "rendition" involved arrest warrants and returning suspects to the country that issued the arrest warrants so they could be prosecuted.

The Bush administration policy of extraordinary rendition thumbs its nose at the need for arrest warrants, picks up suspects in secret, and sends them to torture-friendly countries for interrogation.

Nothing beyond suspicion involved, no warrant needed and no prosecution required.

 

[sodaseller]

I totally disagree. I can't remember in my lifetime another period where threats to us were internal as much as external, and intelligence from individual suspects was so crucial.

That's odd. You post fairly intelligently. I would have sworn you were older than 6. You must be a prodigy

 

[Teejay32]

The Clinton administration's policy of "rendition" involved arrest warrants and returning suspects to the country that issued the arrest warrants so they could be prosecuted.

The Bush administration policy of extraordinary rendition thumbs its nose at the need for arrest warrants, picks up suspects in secret, and sends them to torture-friendly countries for interrogation.

That's probably the most clear and concise example of bias I've ever seen here. Cool. The point being, there was some value in having countries like Egypt question suspects, and keeping them out of US territory.

 

[Fitswimmer]

There has to be some kind of medium level between giving a terrorist the same rights as an American citizen and torturing them. The Geneva convention was compiled when wars had borders and soldiers joined armies. It needs to be updated to the needs of the current situations. I'm just glad I don't have to be the one that does it!

 

[sodaseller]

There has to be some kind of medium level between giving a terrorist the same rights as an American citizen and torturing them. The Geneva convention was compiled when wars had borders and soldiers joined armies. It needs to be updated to the needs of the current situations. I'm just glad I don't have to be the one that does it!

There is. The USSC opinion did not grant detainees the same rights as uniformed combatants. But there ware absolute minimum safeguards that were not being observed. At a minimum, we have not put into practice any reasonable method for separating out those that should be in detention from those that are completely innocent. Beyond that there is room for reasonable debate on the legal procedures to be followed, the burden of proof to hold, etc., for those whose status as threat is debatable But it's plain to me at least that until we even come with a system to quickly determine and release those that have we have no reason to hold, we aren't meeting any acceptable standard.

We have released many and conceded there was no basis to view them as an enemy or threat, but only after holding them for years and only after outside legal pressure, either internationally or through our system. That's unacceptable, IMO

 

[Fitswimmer]

We have released many and conceded there was no basis to view them as an enemy or threat, but only after holding them for years and only after outside legal pressure, either internationally or through our system. That's unacceptable, IMO

I agree, but I still haven't figured out what the payoff was for doing that. It could have been that holding people indefinately was supposed to be a deterrent to others, but there's a good deal of debate whether deterrence even works. It could have been fear that because the intelligence was so wrong in other issues it was wrong again, and nobody wants to be the one that released the next Mohammed Atta. To my mind, holding an innocent indefinately and then releasing him is more likely to create the next Mohammed Atta.
I would like to hear the reasoning, anyway. I'm probably not going to consider it valid, but I'd still like to know why that happened.

 

[bsnyder]

Murmerings in the blogs that a deal has been struck....

From Byron York:

Word is there will be an announcement at the Capitol today with McCain, Graham, Warner, Frist, and others, including Stephen Hadley.

 

[LuvDuke]

That's probably the most clear and concise example of bias I've ever seen here. Cool. The point being, there was some value in having countries like Egypt question suspects, and keeping them out of US territory.

The point here is that the "extraordinary rendition" program did NOT predate the Bush administration. At least paperwork, in the form of an indictment, conviction in abstencia, etc. was required under Clinton.

 

[LuvDuke]

There has to be some kind of medium level between giving a terrorist the same rights as an American citizen and torturing them. The Geneva convention was compiled when wars had borders and soldiers joined armies. It needs to be updated to the needs of the current situations. I'm just glad I don't have to be the one that does it!

You have hit the nail on head. With this administration, there is no middle ground. You either agree with their torture program 100% OR you want to kiss/hug the terrorists and aid them in their terrorist activities. It is these false choices they present that is the real stumbling block to any kind of dialog.

 

[dcentity2000]

It really does you good to just laugh sometimes



Rich::

 

[LuvDuke]

I agree, but I still haven't figured out what the payoff was for doing that. It could have been that holding people indefinately was supposed to be a deterrent to others, but there's a good deal of debate whether deterrence even works. It could have been fear that because the intelligence was so wrong in other issues it was wrong again, and nobody wants to be the one that released the next Mohammed Atta. To my mind, holding an innocent indefinately and then releasing him is more likely to create the next Mohammed Atta.
I would like to hear the reasoning, anyway. I'm probably not going to consider it valid, but I'd still like to know why that happened.

IMO, many of the programs were nothing more than half-assed ideas that became policy when Congress failed in their oversight duties. A lot of it doesn't make sense. For example, what were they going to do with the prisoners at Guantanamo? You can't hold somebody forever and when you release them, as you correctly stated, then they're really mad. My guess is they were hoping these prisoners would just disappear or no one would care enough to question or more than likely, they just didn't think about it. Hell, they went to war in Iraq without a plan. Why would Guantanamo be any different?

You see for this administration, questions are highly inconvenient. So they stonewall. They go on the attack. They accuse people of having the most vile motives including treason, conspiracy with terrorists, etc.

Intelligent questions and the truth are this administration's biggest enemies.