White House Offers New Proposal on Interrogations

  1. White House Offers New Proposal on Interrogations

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091801132.html
    ---------------------------------------------------
    Bush Detainee Plan Adds to World Doubts Of U.S., Powell Says

    Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell said yesterday that he decided to publicly oppose the Bush administration's proposed rules for the treatment of terrorism suspects in part because the plan would add to growing doubts about whether the United States adheres to its own moral code.
    --------------------------------------------
    Dozens of Taliban prisoners died after surrendering to Northern Alliance forces, asphyxiated in the shipping containers used to transport them to prison, witnesses say.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/11/in...45de0d&ei=5070
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Testimony of Guantánamo detainee Jumah al-Dossari
    http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr511072005
    -----------------------------------------------
    Canadian Inquiry Absolves Maher Arar; Faults Canada, US Officials

    The Canadian government has acknowledged for the first time that one of the most well-known victims of CIA extraordinary rendition is a completely innocent man. On Monday, a judge concluded a major investigation into the case of Maher Arar. He's the Syrian-born Canadian detained nearly four years ago by US authorities at JFK airport in New York. Rather than being released and sent home to his family in Canada, Arar ended up in a Syrian jail where he was repeatedly tortured. US officials accused him of links to al-Qaeda. On Monday, Justice Dennis O'Connor wrote: "I am able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constituted a threat to the security of Canada." ...
    http://www.democracynow.org/article..../09/19/1348206
    ------------------------------------------
    Afghan prisoners beaten to death at US military interrogation base
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanista...909294,00.html
    ----------------------------------------
    In U.S. Report, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths
    http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...AC0894DD404482
    -----------------------------------
    Physicians' failure to reveal torture
    http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/arch...06/011306a.php
    •  
  2. 48 Comments

  3. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Call me a brute, but I don't lose any sleep at night knowing some terrorist is losing sleep because the music group, the Black Eye Peas are blaring in their ears.

    Intimidation is a good thing when you are trying to extract information. And, contrary to popular sentiment, it DOES work. Khalid sang like a little birdie after just a few turns on the waterboard. Very well deserved turns, I might add.

    Codifying some inane notion that ensures some terrorist of relief from the psychological fear of interrogation is not in our national interest.

    Waterboard the murderers. I not only don't care, I revel in the concept.

    You want to codify rules to prevent permanent harm, sign me up. You want the murders to sleep well at night: you don't have my support nor approval. I WANT them to squirm at the thought of what will happen when some gung ho American "Jack Bauer" takes custody of them.

    I just think we are a tougher metal of people to be afraid to either be tough when it comes to interrogating, or being interrogated.

    Permanent harm? No. Everthing up to that line? With pleasure.

    And I don't regret for one second holding this opinion. I just can't conjure up within my soul any remorse. And I just don't see the rationale for the expectation that holding any such remorse would fare our own sailors and soldiers better treatment.

    When did we become so nilly willy? I seem to recall very different thought processes about the treatment of these so-called men five years ago.

    Here's hoping there are a few secret CIA detention camps still out there, and here's a tall one to our men and women running them. Happy hunting.

    I said this five years ago, and it still holds true today: no remorse. None, in fact, at all.

    In a similar vein: If the Taliban want to congregate at some funeral, I'm all for making it THEIR funeral, as well. Better THEIR funeral than the funeral of some American or NATO kid in a few days. Again, I simply have no remorse over the concept.

    We didn't start this WAR, but I give my complete and unhindered approval in finishing it. That means not robbing our heroes of the tools to do their job: protecting us. I will ALWAYS balance such 'rights' in favor of actual innocents. That means holding the information to prevent the next 9/11 in higher regard than whether the terrorists that would have participated sleep well at night.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Sep 20, '06
  4. by   pickledpepperRN
    Not related to the link. Just a question
    What about torturing innocent people?


    http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=527
    Last edit by pickledpepperRN on Sep 20, '06
  5. by   rninme
    Oh sure, violate the terms of the Geneva convention....who the heck cares?? Bring back the rack....and the iron maiden....hook up the jumper cables.....burn them at the stake... . MOHO...it's morally corrupt.
  6. by   Spidey's mom
    My understanding is that the Geneva Conventions themselves do not apply to groups like Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group BECAUSE they do not wear a uniform and are not state sponsored.

    However, due to the Supreme Cabal saying otherwise - we NOW must define exactly what we are allowed to do during interrogations and Bush is right - without definitions, our servicemen/women put themselves at risk.

    Regarding McCain's statements that our soldiers would be at risk if captured if this was actually defined, well . . . does anyone really think any kind of accomodations would stop the beheading, the torture, the shotgun to the back of the head executions, the mass murder of innocent people?

    There is nothing, nothing that would stop that.

    Except to get to them first. And as Tim says, take them out.
    __________________________________________________ __


    "Harris, a distinguished Navy veteran who was born in Japan and educated at Annapolis and Harvard, is a serious man trying to do a politically impossible job. I spoke with him at length, and with a dozen other officers and guards, and visited three different detention blocks."
    "The high-minded critics who complain about torture are wrong. We are far too soft on these guys - and, as a result, aren't getting the valuable intelligence we need to save American lives. The politically correct regulations are unbelievable. Detainees are entitled to a full eight hours sleep and can't be woken up for interrogations. They enjoy three meals and five prayers per day, without interruption. They are entitled to a minimum of two hours of outdoor recreation per day."

    Link
    Last edit by Roy Fokker on Sep 20, '06 : Reason: Shortened link to eliminate page scroll
  7. by   Roy Fokker
    Sacrifice your principles in achieving an aim.

    Will our honouring treaty obligations ensure that American PoWs won't be beheaded in the near future? I don't think so - in fact, I honestly doubt it.

    So, The ends justify the means, right?
  8. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from Roy Fokker
    Sacrifice your principles in achieving an aim.

    Will our honouring treaty obligations ensure that American PoWs won't be beheaded in the near future? I don't think so - in fact, I honestly doubt it.

    So, The ends justify the means, right?
    Thanks for fixing my link.

    steph
  9. by   Roy Fokker
    Quote from stevielynn
    Thanks for fixing my link.

    steph
    Anytime
  10. by   pickledpepperRN
    Colin Powell said other nations are questioning whether the United States is following its moral code.
    “Suppose North Korea or somebody else wants to redefine or 'clarify' Geneva Conventions provisions prohibiting "outrages against personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment" of prisoners, he said.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091801414.html

    Letter:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091400728.html
    Last edit by pickledpepperRN on Sep 20, '06
  11. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Roy Fokker
    Sacrifice your principles in achieving an aim.

    Will our honouring treaty obligations ensure that American PoWs won't be beheaded in the near future? I don't think so - in fact, I honestly doubt it.

    So, The ends justify the means, right?
    The error here is that it is a 'principle' of mine to coddle rogue murderers. It is not.

    I respect the Geneva Convention. Armed combatants operate at the behest of their governments and do not deserve being treated as individual criminals.

    Individual criminals however? They do, in fact, DESERVE to be treated as individual criminals and the two-bit thugs they are. Even so, fine, hold our powder when they aren't intelligence marks.

    But, when there is actionable intelligence to disrupt, not their military, of which, they have no gov't backed military, but to disrupt their rogue gangs: go get the information, and don't bicker about which holds are barred.

    No permanent harm. Everything else is fair game. I would accept that as acceptable treatment of Americans AND I would defend America's principles regarding such treatment against ANY agent we face, military, or otherwise.

    The one shining truth of Abu Graib: we treated the prisoners there exponentially better than its previous wardens.

    I'm not sorry that I don't feel sorry about some terrorist with a pair of panties on his head. The rest of the world seems self-santimonious at the moment about feigned outrage. They only feel thusly entitled because they perceive some weakness on our part.

    The definition of terrorism is to use a nation's civility against them. The solution: no remorse.

    Or, as Caligula said, "Let them hate us so long as they fear us more." I don't see the productivity of a debate over how to make ourselves less fearful to terrorists. It just encourages the behavior.

    You can't treat terrorists as mere criminals. This isn't a law enforcement issue. We've made that mistake in the past, to our detriment. It IS the collective acts of war. A war we did not start, but one we MUST have the will to finish if we want it over.

    I have no remorse about the acts and will necessary to finish what we did not start.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Sep 20, '06
  12. by   Roy Fokker
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Individual criminals however? They do, in fact, DESERVE to be treated as individual criminals and the two-bit thugs they are. Even so, fine, hold our powder when they aren't intelligence marks.

    But, when there is actionable intelligence to disrupt, not their military, of which, they have no gov't backed military, but to disrupt their rogue gangs: go get the information, and don't bicker about which holds are barred.
    Yes, we all know which is which and who is who.

    We will know who are innocent and who are guilty. We just have to coax them to accept that as well.

    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    No permanent harm. Everything else is fair game. I would accept that as acceptable treatment of Americans AND I would defend America's principles regarding such treatment against ANY agent we face, military, or otherwise.
    Waterboarding, racking, whippings, beatings with truncheons, foot whippings (I'm told Oday Hussein loved this one) , force feedings etc.

    None of them do 'permanent harm'.

    What century are we in?

    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    The one shining truth of Abu Graib: we treated the prisoners there exponentially better than its previous wardens.
    Yes, our standards must be compared to people like Saddam Hussein.

    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    I'm not sorry that I don't feel sorry about some terrorist with a pair of panties on his head.
    "All those present in Abu Ghraib are automatically guilty of terrorism. They were tried and convicted and as their sentence, they had to wear women's panties on their heads".

    Nice talking to ya Timothy... it's been a while.
    To the gym I go!



    cheers,
    Last edit by Roy Fokker on Sep 20, '06
  13. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Roy Fokker
    "All those present in Abu Ghraib are automatically guilty of terrorism. They were tried and convicted and as their sentence, they had to wear women's panties on their heads".
    I'm willing to take the risk, when it comes to panty head wearing, that some might not have been actual trigger men.

    If I'm wrong, they'll survive. If I'm right, a "Jack Bauer" approach might just arm us with the intel to prevent the deaths of other Americans.

    It's a chance I'm willing to take.

    And while it's not an issue of 'comparing' our actions to two bit dictators, I also will not suffer lightly being impugned by same.

    America is a moral nation. I don't take offense at preserving our integrity. But, it is simply not necessary to completely rob our interrogators of the tools to do their jobs as a result. Such things SHOULD be vague. The real tool isn't a waterboard or a foot beating, but FEAR.

    When you codify that instilling fear is too high a price to pay for intelligence, you rob us of the intelligence to save lives.

    I'm not a proponent of lasting physical harm or the mindless infliction of pain. But, psychological exploitation is a different situation. I have no qualms about that.

    You know what? Terrorists SHOULD be afraid of us.

    From the moment they are captured, their one lasting thought process SHOULD be, Oh, Crap! I hope that's an acceptible PG-13 explanation on this board of what I am saying. Because I was thinking in terms of rated X for extreme fear.

    In reality, every coddle rule we promulgate will be explained in detail to the terrorists before they are caught. Instead of capitalizing on fear, we'll just have to work harder on instilling it above complaints of violating their 'rights'. So, the anti-'torture' language just instigates the need for more pressing techniques to disabuse them of the notion of a "Sgt. Schultz" type captivity.

    You want to pray? What's in it for me? Talk first.

    Personally, I'm completely comfortable with terrorists in American custody PERCEIVING their captors as Jack Bauer types. I'm much more comfortable with THAT than allowing the perception to be that of a bunch of Col. Klinks.

    Shame on John McCain! He, of all Congressmen, should know FIRST HAND of the perils of government micromanagement of war.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Sep 20, '06
  14. by   pickledpepperRN
    How does torturing people make us safer?
    Why make a new law retroactive?


    Not just panties on his head - http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Phot...ead_040704.htm

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040524/lede
    http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib.../introduction/
    --------------------------
    Bush says he is waging a "struggle for civilization," but civilized nations do not debate slavery or genocide, and they don't debate torture, either. This spectacle insults and dishonors every American.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...95.html?sub=AR

close