Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on May 04, 2005, 01:46:07 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4514839.stm
A military judge has rejected the guilty plea entered by US soldier Lynndie England in her trial over the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
The judge said testimony presented to the court suggested that she did not know what she was doing was wrong.
See? It's not just the highers ups who are exempted from consequences.......
-
LOL That is just........
Words cannot even begin to describe.....
W.T.F Mate?
-
*yawns and ignores*
-
So she pleads guilty and they decide she's innocent? :wtf:
Great job legitimising the cause of every terrorist group in Iraq! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by karajorma
So she pleads guilty and they decide she's innocent? :wtf:
Great job legitimising the cause of every terrorist group in Iraq! :rolleyes:
'she didn't know what she was doing was wrong'
Um.... the mind boggles, really. Can al-queda suspects at Gitmo use the same defence, then?
-
No, because they're not fighting for Freedom (tm)
-
Originally posted by karajorma
So she pleads guilty and they decide she's innocent? :wtf:
Great job legitimising the cause of every terrorist group in Iraq! :rolleyes:
Agreed it is ****ed up. But how would that legitamize their cause.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Agreed it is ****ed up. But how would that legitamize their cause.
A Us soldier is photgraphed posing and smiling next to tortured Iraqis.
Said US soldier is indicted, but pleads guilty as part of a plea bargain which guarentees a - maximum - sentence drastically reduced from the maximum for the crime (i.e. will be sentenced to the max in the plea bargain or the jury recommendation whichever is lower).
After that guilty plea, the court decides to reject it and declare her plea to be 'not guilty'. It justifies this by saying there is a contradiction with another already convcited (again pleading guilty) soldier than shown 'she did not know what she was doing was wrong'.
To an Iraqi - or Muslim, or just anyone - this looks like an almost tacit approval; no punishment for torturers, no accountability at the top for torture policy.
They're not going to be made any more likely to stop hating the US, are they? Especially if their hatred is based on a statement that the Us is seeking to oppress Muslims (perhaps by torturing them in jail?)
-
WTF are you lot talking about?!
When they say they rejected the Guilty plea, it doesn't mean she's been found not guilty!!
Normally, the ONLY reason to plead Guilty is to get off with a lighter sentence - What's happened here is that they're basically saying, "No F'ing way are you getting off easy *****, we're nailing your ass to the wall for this one!"
With this decision, she's effectively been denied the lenient sentancing and is now going to have to go through a full court-martial. It ain't gonna be pretty...
And I bet all the other scumbags are gonna be using her as a scapegoat to try and get themselves off their own hooks...
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
A Us soldier is photgraphed posing and smiling next to tortured Iraqis.
Said US soldier is indicted, but pleads guilty as part of a plea bargain which guarentees a - maximum - sentence drastically reduced from the maximum for the crime (i.e. will be sentenced to the max in the plea bargain or the jury recommendation whichever is lower).
After that guilty plea, the court decides to reject it and declare her plea to be 'not guilty'. It justifies this by saying there is a contradiction with another already convcited (again pleading guilty) soldier than shown 'she did not know what she was doing was wrong'.
To an Iraqi - or Muslim, or just anyone - this looks like an almost tacit approval; no punishment for torturers, no accountability at the top for torture policy.
They're not going to be made any more likely to stop hating the US, are they? Especially if their hatred is based on a statement that the Us is seeking to oppress Muslims (perhaps by torturing them in jail?)
In the eyes of a Sunni it might legitimize it. To the rest of the world or to me for an instance. This is a dumb lawyer.
-
Originally posted by Cyker
Normally, the ONLY reason to plead Guilty is to get off with a lighter sentence - What's happened here is that they're basically saying, "No F'ing way are you getting off easy *****, we're nailing your ass to the wall for this one!"
With this decision, she's effectively been denied the lenient sentancing and is now going to have to go through a full court-martial. It ain't gonna be pretty...
And I bet all the other scumbags are gonna be using her as a scapegoat to try and get themselves off their own hooks...
This was my understanding of it too. Someone needs to be the scapegoat for this whole thing, and it's probably going to be her. But for it to be an effective scapegoating, there has to be a full-blown, highly-publicized court-martial resulting in the maximum sentence.
-
The problem for me is the 'Didn't know what she was doing was wrong'.
I cannot believe that someone who was raised in a country so heavily based on it's own Moral codes, which is currently in massive flux regarding, for example, the life of a Foetus etc, did not know that torturing, abusing, and humiliating other humans was unaware that it was wrong.
I will wait and see, but I get the feeling we are going to see a token sentence to be honest.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
In the eyes of a Sunni it might legitimize it. To the rest of the world or to me for an instance. This is a dumb lawyer.
Isn't ignoring 'the eyes of a Sunni' and whatnot what leads to these problems of hatred & terrorism in the first place?
-
This is about justice and not about politics. She pleaded guilty to the charges, so sentance her a punishment that fits the crime. As I said this is not about politics. The "eye of the Sunni" should be considered when making political decisions just not whether to accept or reject a guilty pleah. A verdict made in court should not be made based of political concerns either. If you break the law, you must pay for it. That said, this judge is a moron. But then again this might be a military court and therefore have different rules.
-
I would like to know what the judge is saying.
Are they saying that she did not have a concept of right and wrong, ie she was innocently following orders - a sort of insanity plea? (Hell no)
Or are they saying that she has no concept of right and wrong, and she is simply pleading guilty for a lighter sentence? (Which is also pretty meh. If it is really that beneficial to plead guilty, then the court system is becoming more like the stock market or a freaking casino; take your chances that your lawyer can prove you innocent or get a lighter sentence, or take the sure bet of a lighter sentence via a guilty plea. 'Not guilty' and 'guilty' should actually have some relevance to the actual guilt of the person.)
-
But then again this might be a military court and therefore have different rules.
It is.
She isn't getting off. This just means she isn't getting off with the bargain. I'm glad the Judge wouldn't accept it. Now she is going to be tried with higher penalties, and it is a way for the courts to tell her that she knows this was wrong and that she knew what she was doing was wrong. And I know she knows what the right thing is ever since the day she joined the Army. From the first day you get there they try to burn: "Do the Right thing!" in your head. Second, I know they've given her mandatory classes on how to treat EPW's and POW's! So she is obviously lying.
And many people don't know this but military personnel can be tried technically twice.(They've never done it before though.) I think it's called something like seperate sovergienty or something like that. It is where I can kill somebody in Florida as a soldier I can be prosecuted under UCMJ and have my trail thrown out or even be proven innocent and then the state of Florida can prosecute me for the same thing. The state governments and military normaly get together and figure out which has the worse pushinment try them on that, and they could(but I highly doubt) if they really want a conviction. They could if she is proven innocent or if she gets off lightly try her under Iraqi court system when it is set up. But like I said I don't think that would ever happen.
-
So with the plea bargain out the door, she's realistically looking at a death sentence?
SWEET. If this doesn't show the world that there is accountability, I don't know what will.
-
Are you being sarcastic? :wtf:
-
My irony meter is going off the scope! *boom*
-
You've mischaracterized the whole thing, aldo...
Her direct superior plead took the rap and said that he ordered everything.
The case was dismissed because the Government(who was prosecuting the case) didn't have enough evidence to prove she knew the order was illegal.
The "leash" was a harness that they used to remove uncooperative prisoners without putting themselves into unnecessary danger. Corrections is a dangerous business. Would you rather they used a water hose or electrified prod?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You've mischaracterized the whole thing, aldo...
Her direct superior plead took the rap and said that he ordered everything.
The case was dismissed because the Government(who was prosecuting the case) didn't have enough evidence to prove she knew the order was illegal.
The "leash" was a harness that they used to remove uncooperative prisoners without putting themselves into unnecessary danger. Corrections is a dangerous business. Would you rather they used a water hose or electrified prod?
And the pointing at prisoners genitals was what? A visual record of a herpes check for his medical file? :lol:
Quite frankly if this woman didn't know what she was doing was illegal she has no business being in the army. Most people with even a small amount of intelligence know that you aren't allowed to play jenga using naked prisoners as blocks.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Would you rather they used a water hose or electrified prod?
Who says they haven't? ;)
And I find the whole thing rather amusing. They had someone (low-ranking) to take the blame for the whole thing willingly, yet they didn't do a damn thing.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Are you being sarcastic? :wtf:
Nope. Military judges aren't bound by any sentencing guidelines, so if the judge decides that a death sentence is warranted, she'll be shipped straight to Leavenworth and strapped to the gurney, probably less than an hour after she gets there.
Public executions are so much more fun.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You've mischaracterized the whole thing, aldo...
Her direct superior plead took the rap and said that he ordered everything.
The case was dismissed because the Government(who was prosecuting the case) didn't have enough evidence to prove she knew the order was illegal.
The "leash" was a harness that they used to remove uncooperative prisoners without putting themselves into unnecessary danger. Corrections is a dangerous business. Would you rather they used a water hose or electrified prod?
I presume smearing them with human excrement was also part of removing uncooperative prisoners? Or building a human pyramid of bodies? Or placing them on a box, hooded, attaching electrodes to their genitals and threatening them with electrocution?
This, is an apparent list of abuses recorded in a leaked internal army report; (EDIT; at least some of these are seen in the infamous photos)
[q]. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;
b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;
c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;
d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;
e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear;
f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;
g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;
h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;
i. (S) Writing "I am a Rapest" (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;
j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;
k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;
l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;
m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.
a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;
b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;
c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;
d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;
e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;
f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;
g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee. [/q]
Reportedly, Rumsfeld (in congress testimony) has seen videotapes of these abuses; including the rape of a male prisoner.
Seriously, you can try and justify it happening if you want, but actually claiming humiliation and torture never even happened is living in cloud-cuckoo land.
-
and if a death sentance was issued, is that necessarily wrong?
-
I didn't say I agreed with it, just that not all of it rises to the level of unnecessary humiliation.
Some of you turkey's are acting like someone got killed...oh, wait, someone did, they were decapitated by these guys compatriots.
That's something that's been lost in this discussion. You can say that it's wrong to treat them this way, and it is. But make no mistake, if the situation were reversed there would be no prisoners, just a lot of corpses. These bastards are killing people in an attempt to return the world to societal model circa 1025 ad. And those that we captured have had nothing worse done to them than a little humiliation. Keep that in mind.
*edit*
redmenace, am I correct in assuming that you advocate killing this soldier for what she did?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I didn't say I agreed with it, just that not all of it rises to the level of unnecessary humiliation.
Some of you turkey's are acting like someone got killed...oh, wait, someone did, they were decapitated by these guys compatriots.
That's something that's been lost in this discussion. You can say that it's wrong to treat them this way, and it is. But make no mistake, if the situation were reversed there would be no prisoners, just a lot of corpses. These bastards are killing people in an attempt to return the world to societal model circa 1025 ad. And those that we captured have had nothing worse done to them than a little humiliation. Keep that in mind.
You're completely wrong on both a factual and moral standpoint.
Firstly, there are allegations of murder of prisoners/detainees under torture anyways, including documentary evidence of badly beaten bodies (usually with the COD signed off by illegible handwriting by an american army doctor, listing something like 'heart defect' as the cause).
Secondly, many of the detainees were not convicted of any crimes, but civillians picked up at random roadblocks; surely you'd expect the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' to extend to the nations you 'liberate from tyranny'? Especially if you consider torture a valid form of interrogation. There have also been instances of civillians being arrested after failing to pay kidnappers/blackmailers (upon which a fake report is written alleging they are insurgents), and of the relatives of these people being similarly detained and tortured for having the audacity to complain to US officials.
These detainees include juveniles as young as 11. Additionally, there were specific reports of a 14-year old girl being abused. Something like 2,400 Iraqis are detained by the US without charge or criminal process.
Thirdly, being sexually and physically abused - brutally - is not 'a little humiliation'.
Fourthly, and finally, there is no way in hell you can even pretend what other people have done is a justification; even if all the people detained & subsequently tortured were convicted and guilty. America purports to be a paragon of virtue, shining freedom and democracy across the world; how in the name of hell can that coexist with an accepted policy of torture?
How can you justify this with what someone else from the same country - "these guys compatriots" - did? By that token, I can sodomise, electrocute, beat, starve and detain you in a 2-metre square cell*, along with your family, because some of your compatriots are convicted rapists or murders.
*All of those things have been recorded in the Abu Ghraib scandal
-
[q].h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;
simulate?
i. (S) Writing "I am a Rapest" (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;
if this allegation is true, then the one who did the forceing should get 20-30 years imprisonment
k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;
30 years
a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;
not sure how nasty that is, assumeing worst case, maybe 10 years
f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;
why is this on the list, that getting a wound stiched? if it was, not allowing it, then I could understand
g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
20 years
[/q]
the rest of them are in the "meh.." catagory. the comander responsable should get a dishonorable discharge, and maybe a short imprisonment for them (ie not includeing the above).
-
RE;
.h; Simulation is an important form of psychological torture. There have also been reported instances of actual electro-shock torture IIRC
EDIt; he was told if he fell off the box he'd be electrocuted; that is a form of endurance torture.
.i; note the 'alleged' part.
.a; Said detainee was also sodomized with a night-stick afterwards. Apparently the phosphorous stuff was frequently used... I think the chemicals may be acidic in nature, not sure.
.f; I think there's 2 things here. One was being slammed against the wall, the second was probably that having an MP stitch the wound is considered to be denying proper medical treatment.
g. incidentally, there was multiple co-oberating witnesses.
The commander of the prison itself was publicly admonished and quitely suspended and then reassigned.
Um... as an aside, the cold water stuff is an obvious form of torture (i.e. soak them continuously and let them freeze), and the dog/nudity/female underwear/masturbation stuff is not only degrading and humiliating but also particularly bad under Islam (implying it was chosen for that purpose).
There's also other stuff I've read as being reported (by eyewitnesses), including further sodomisation of inmates using nightsticks and broomsticks, a guy left to hang by his pinkies, a (17 yo) son of an Iraqi general stripped naked, smeared in mud and left to stand outside in the freezing night (to help interrogate his father) and the rape of a 12-year old boy.
-
Do I have to go find video of those bugger's friends, or at least people they support, decapitating someone for no other reason than they happened to be in country, working on the infrastructure that keeps getting blown up.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Do I have to go find video of those bugger's friends, or at least people they support, decapitating someone for no other reason than they happened to be in country, working on the infrastructure that keeps getting blown up.
No, you have to prove they are guilty before you can even pretend to justify torture of them. You can't just justify that sort of abuse by assuming they might know someone who is an insurgent - it's no better than what Saddam or any dictator would and does do.
EDIt; and you realise the insurgents can justify torture and decapitating an American by that same logic - what their compatriots did ?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
and you realise the insurgents can justify torture and decapitating an American by that same logic - what their compatriots did ?
That's just it, neither of it is really justifed.
But, by the same token, you can't lump all interogation in together and call it "torture".
Torture involves a act directly intended to cause pain or disfigurment.
Interrogation involves weakening the will of the interogatee so that they don't lie when questioned.
To the uninitiated both appear to be the same thing. It's like comparing sex and a proctology exam, they appear similar, but are quite different.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Torture involves a act directly intended to cause pain or disfigurment.
That's it Lib. Keep up the rewriting of the english language to make terms say what is politically expedient. You'll have the Orwellian society you're after very quickly.
tor·ture
Excruciating physical or mental pain
Lets forget that and use the goodspeak term shall we?
-
ok, let me try, I have no problem with torture so long as it causes no long term damage, and more importantly gets the results in a more effective (quantity*quality) manner than any other alternative available.
and it's not simply being used as entertainment for some bored gaurds.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
That's just it, neither of it is really justifed.
But, by the same token, you can't lump all interogation in together and call it "torture".
Torture involves a act directly intended to cause pain or disfigurment.
Interrogation involves weakening the will of the interogatee so that they don't lie when questioned.
To the uninitiated both appear to be the same thing. It's like comparing sex and a proctology exam, they appear similar, but are quite different.
Aah, following the Rumsfeld doctrine, are we? Presumably you're well initiated in torture.... despite talking complete and utter rubbish in your definition.
Sodomy isn't interrogation. Beatings aren't interrogation. Sleep deprivation, ritual humiliation, being held in tiny cells, denial of food are not interrogation. I suggect you shove a nightstick up your backside, before you claim to comment on what does and does not cause pain.
If you want a definition of torture, I suggest you consult a more reputable and unbiased source than the seedy 'legal' guidelines issued by the US government to excuse themselves from the consequences of human rights abuses (under the geneva convention).
Perhaps the UN Convention againt Torture, which defines it as;
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
..
Article 16
1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture or references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
2. The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or which relate to extradition or expulsion.
Detainees are subject to both the protection of the Geneva Convention (including illegal combatants; if the insurgency is defined as such), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 7; No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.)
Originally posted by Bobboau
ok, let me try, I have no problem with torture so long as it causes no long term damage, and more importantly gets the results in a more effective (quantity*quality) manner than any other alternative available.
Problem is that it doesn't; people being tortured are far, far more likely to say what the torturer wants rather than the truth. It's an inherently unreliable method of getting information - how many people burned in the Dark Ages do you think were actually witches?
-
Meh, nevermind. Not getting involved.
All I'll say is that it is a sad sad day when I hear members of a so called civilised culture condoning torture and pain-induced obedience or confession in any way shape or form. I am truly dissapointed.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Aah, following the Rumsfeld doctrine, are we? Presumably you're well initiated in torture.... despite talking complete and utter rubbish in your definition.
Sodomy isn't interrogation. Beatings aren't interrogation.agreed Sleep deprivation, ritual humiliation, being held in tiny cells, denial of food are not interrogation.except for the denial of food I disagree. Food is a basic right, but the rest of it is meant to weaken the will of the person being questioned. I assume you wouldn't support chemical inducment? I suggect you shove a nightstick up your backside, before you claim to comment on what does and does not cause pain.I never claimed to know what causes pain, and I never said sodomy was a good interogation technique
If you want a definition of torture, I suggest you consult a more reputable and unbiased source than the seedy 'legal' guidelines issued by the US government to excuse themselves from the consequences of human rights abuses (under the geneva convention).
Perhaps the UN Convention againt Torture, which defines it as;
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
..
Article 16
1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture or references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
2. The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or which relate to extradition or expulsion.
Detainees are subject to both the protection of the Geneva Convention (including illegal combatants; if the insurgency is defined as such), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 7; No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.)
Problem is that it doesn't; people being tortured are far, far more likely to say what the torturer wants rather than the truth. It's an inherently unreliable method of getting information - how many people burned in the Dark Ages do you think were actually witches?
You refuse to admit that there is a difference between Interogation and Torture. Also, those bloody "regulations" basically say that you can ask questions but it's the choice of the prisoner to answer or not. That's a waste of time. Sure it's not okay to intentially injure a prision in the course of questioning, but denying them sleep or peace in order to weaken their will doesn't injure them. It only makes them uncomfortable for a short period of time.
-
If interrogation involves torture, that doesn't mean it isn't torture...it just means that it's torture with a purpose other than sadistic pleasure. Do the ends justify the means?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Also, those bloody "regulations" basically say that you can ask questions but it's the choice of the prisoner to answer or not. That's a waste of time.
I bet you'd be the first to complain if you were arrested and weren't mirandised so I really don't know what you're on about here Lib.
You have the right to remain silent in the USA why shouldn't an Iraqi have that right too?
-
Okay, since were on the "UN is God and Knows All" bent:
So you guys would be okay with chemical inducment(sodium pentethol and the like) then?
How exactly are interorgators supposed to extract information from uncooperative prisoners?
-
first, the UN isnt all good...not by far....it is by no means a shining example of goodness (food for oil....grrr...)
to the point...plain and simple, vengeance and revenge is wrong. those prisoners should not have been treated like they were....stooping down to their level (assuming that atleast SOME of those thousands is actually part of the terror organization thing) is pitiful
the only good, rightous way is the way of "turning the other cheek"....they murder and kill....you do your best to stop them from doing so, but you do NOT return the favor; the goal is to stop their actions, and those particular treatments did little to accomplish such (likely only spurred more)
there is nothing that cant be accomplished through good, civil means that can be accomplished through crueler methods (aka, there is a good way to do everything); patience is the key
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Do the ends justify the means?
yes.
-
realistically, yes, the ends often to justify the means..doesnt mean it's right, of course, and doesnt mean there wasnt a better way...but to reach a goal through any particular mean, justifies that mean
(other than something absurd...like...killing yourself because you have a headache or something)
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You refuse to admit that there is a difference between Interogation and Torture. Also, those bloody "regulations" basically say that you can ask questions but it's the choice of the prisoner to answer or not. That's a waste of time. Sure it's not okay to intentially injure a prision in the course of questioning, but denying them sleep or peace in order to weaken their will doesn't injure them. It only makes them uncomfortable for a short period of time.
Firstly; stay up for around, ooh, a week straight (with the aid of constant beatings, being soaked in water, having no bed and finally high-decibel white noise played at you) and say it's just 'uncomfortable'.
Secondly; there is a difference between interrogation and torture. The difference is that one involves inflicting physical or mental harm. Attempting to move the goalposts to justify torture in many ways equivalent to what took place under Saddam is reprehensible and wrong IMHO.
Thirdly; Not only is denial of food a basic violation of human rights under all kinds of acts relating to both war and peace - signed by the US may I add - we're not talking denying a meal here and there, we're talking planned and calculated starvation.
Originally posted by Liberator
Okay, since were on the "UN is God and Knows All" bent:
So you guys would be okay with chemical inducment(sodium pentethol and the like) then?
Nope. Also a form of torture unless voluntary (due to the side-effects of the drugs, and also potential long term damage or death, as has happened in trials of so-called 'truth' drugs).
Particularly as the aforementioned drugs are ineffective (often are sedatives, hallucinogens and/or barbituates), and public studies have revealed that those 'interrogated' under the influence of such often mix fact and fiction; the only actual reason for effectiveness would be the belief of the subject that they cannot lie under the influence.
Originally posted by Liberator
How exactly are interorgators supposed to extract information from uncooperative prisoners?
Using humane and legal methods with regards to the basic human rights we accord to all civillians, whether accused of a crime, convicted or a crime, or simply being questioned in a police station or court of law.
Essentially, to the same rights you would expect for yourself as an individual picked up on the street by police. If you would accept US police picking you up, and performing some or all of the aformentioned abuses (how about a start of being forced to wet yourself and crawl on the floor whilst being spat on, then forced to strip naked, then shoved in a 2-metre square cell and denied bedding, food or sleep for several days, before being drenched and then 'interrogated' by an officer claiming how happy he is to beat the **** out of you?).
EDIT; incidentally, I'd just like to re-emphasise that torture is not a valid form of interrogation because it does not deliver reliable information. Just look at Sandy Mitchell, a Scot who was tortured in Saudi Arabia into confessing guilt for a series of bombs (which most attribute to Islamic militants - a problem the Saudis wanted to cover up via blaming a westerner).
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Okay, since were on the "UN is God and Knows All" bent:
Setting up a strawman. No one said anything of the sort. The closest that anyone has come to that is demanding that the US keep up with the Geneva convention which it actually signed.
When US soldiers were shown on Iraqi TV after capture the US was the first to complain about Geneva convention abuses. Yet they can do it to anyone they want to just because it's a valid interrogation technique.
I suggest you go find one of the US servicemen who was paraded on Iraqi TV during the opening stages of the war and tell him that whatever his captors did to him was a valid interrogation technique to discover US troop movements.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Setting up a strawman. No one said anything of the sort. The closest that anyone has come to that is demanding that the US keep up with the Geneva convention which it actually signed.
Not just the Geneva convention, though; all manner of UN human rights conventions also apply. In particular, there is no clause which would free the US from having to apply Geneva Convention / human rights to 'illegal combatants'.
-
How exactly are interorgators supposed to extract information from uncooperative prisoners?
Perhaps they might have to accept that they're not going to get any information out of them.
-
Well, it makes sense really, you arrest someone in, say, Michigan for suspected Murder and they deny it. Simple answer, torture them, in a non-physically damaging way, until they do admit.
This would also be good for finding witches, werewolves, icons of lucifer, adulterers etc etc etc
-
you can get anybody to admit to anything if you torture them enough :-/
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Perhaps they might have to accept that they're not going to get any information out of them.
And then people die, just to protect you delicate little sensibilities.
Let's understand something, I'm advocating the denial of sleep and peace of mind as methods of lowering the will to lie, not breaking limbs or injuring someone. It's 2 different things.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Let's understand something, I'm advocating the denial of sleep and peace of mind as methods of lowering the will to lie, not breaking limbs or injuring someone. It's 2 different things.
And you don't mind the insurgents doing that to American troops? Or the police doing it to you?
-
Stupid question, kara.
The point of war is to kill the other guy, or otherwise 'neutralize' them. The overall goal may be to gain land or to save a bunch of people. But when one group is fighting another group in some sort of armed conflict, even if it isn't an official war, they are going to do things that would be otherwise considered, well, worse in a peacetime situation.
Obviously, anyone is going to mind being tortured or killed. Does that mean that the UN should forbid the use of lethal weapons? No. Even if all the nations agreed to it, sooner or later someone would kill somone else, and we'd be right back where we started.
The question of using any method to extract information from prisoners is a blend of civility and pragmatism. You must draw the line and then stick by it. Otherwise, the line is meaningless.
So why draw the line? It gives you a moral advantage. People will be more likely to support your side if they know that you do draw a line, and stick by it, because there's something to stick by. Other than that, it's a question of morals and human psychology. Some people believe it's wrong; some people simply cannot do it, for whatever reason.
But of course the age-old question is, how do you defeat the enemy without becoming them? They are not always going to be willing to say, "Hey - you didn't treat our guys so bad, so we're not gonna treat your guys so bad." It works if you think there might be a possibility of a truce in the end, and it's politically expedient. But if you're in a full-scale war, you or your enemy might think - "Well, depriving them of sleep hasn't worked. The information they know could save lives. What's a little pain when lives hang in the balance?" And thus begins the slippery slope.
I doubt that in any successful military, a chief doctrine has been to tell the soldiers that they don't need to worry about this, because someone somewhere wrote on a piece of paper that they weren't going to do it...although that person may be dead or no longer in governmental service, and probably isn't going to be making the decision about what the opposing force is or isn't going to use.
That's why joining the military is such a big deal. It's putting your entire self on the line for a greater whole than oneself, voluntarily.
Edit: In order to really be able to ask a put-yourself-in-their-shoes question, you have to ask, would it be justified? If the police had good reason to believe that you had information that could save lives, how far would they be justified to go to get you to reveal that information? I think everybody agrees that torture for the sake of torture is wrong, but to assume that it's the only reason that torture happens is simply naive.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
And then people die, just to protect you delicate little sensibilities.
Let's understand something, I'm advocating the denial of sleep and peace of mind as methods of lowering the will to lie, not breaking limbs or injuring someone. It's 2 different things.
Actually, as you assumptatively put it, 'people die' as a potential consequence of observing the standards of justice and freedom which this invasion was supposedly to bring to Iraq. You could probably reduce the murder rate in the US by placing survellance cameras in every house - would you support that? Because otherwise, people die.
(of course, people are dying in custody as well, so I'm not sure how you weight the value of the life of one innocent-until-proven guilty detainee against people who might potentially be killed if that detainee was in fact guilty)
And, again you're assuming these people are guilty without any evidence or indeed any way to quantify that claim.
Finally, psychological torture is still torture (and defined as such in the conventions the US is a signatory of). And torture is of no use as an intelligence gathering method; the more effective it is, the more effective it is at encouraging the suspect to lie and say what the torturer/interrogator wants, rather than the actual truth.
Continous sleep denial, for example, may 'lower the will' of the victim, but it also leaves them open to psychological (for example, psychosis) and brain damage as well as leading to incorrect responses owing to hallucination. A study at the University of California at San Diego on sleep deprivation revealed that different parts of the brain are active in a sleep deprived individual (the temporal lobe in particular shuts down); the more sleep deprived a person is, the less coherent they communicate and the more 'pliable' they are to lie (one interrogator got these people to sign anything he put in front of them; not for the promise of freedom etc, but for the promise of uninterrupted sleep).
-
I'm not talking a permanent or long term denial of sleep here, aldo, a week at the most. You know how bad you feel after a single day without sleep? Now imagine someone asking you questions, you probably be more inclined to tell them what they want to know.
-
[q]you probably be more inclined to tell them what they want to know.[/q]
Or what they want to hear?
-
Not if you didn't know that you wouldn't be denied sleep after the session.
So you'd be okay with it if you and others knew...knew...that someone was going to kill someone else and the police didn't use psychologically harsh interogation methods to extract that that information?
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Stupid question, kara.
You missed my point. I was complaining about the way Lib would be the first to complain about how US marines were treated if this were to happen to them.
You can't denounce the enemy as monsters for doing exactly the same thing you're doing. In fact Saddam actually treated his american POWs better than the people in Guantanamo Bay are being treated.
Either you say this is war and both sides can do whatever they please or you sign up to a treaty to make user that your men are treated humanely in return for the enemy doing the same thing.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Not if you didn't know that you wouldn't be denied sleep after the session.
So you'd be okay with it if you and others knew...knew...that someone was going to kill someone else and the police didn't use psychologically harsh interogation methods to extract that that information?
I can't address that because your definition or harsh and my definition are two different things. Additionally, how can you "know" they're going to do anything until either a) they confess properly or b) they actually do it?
-
ok, lets look at three completely diferent situations that start initaly the same.
there is a guy, the police know he is connected with a disapearence of someone, but they can prove it.
a)they beat a confession out of him.
this isituation the confession is useless and should be throughen out.
b)they beat not only a confession out of him, but he also discloses the location of the body and the murder weapon and tests prove his fingerprints and the victim's blood are on the knife.
this situation produces physical evedence that they would not have otherwise gotten, the confession is not relevent, but the fact that he knew were the body and the murder weapon was, and that it had his prints and the victim's blood on it, prety much prove that he was in fact the killer.
c)they beat a confession out of him, as well the location of the victim they go out to a remote streach of woods and find the nearly dead victim locked in a basement of an old hunting cabbin. the victim then identifies the man as the person who abducted them.
in this case information wich saved a life was gained in addition to damning evedence. even if passive interogation would have provided the same information it likely would not have done so before the victim died.
and as usual the confession is worthless. information gained is not.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I'm not talking a permanent or long term denial of sleep here, aldo, a week at the most. You know how bad you feel after a single day without sleep? Now imagine someone asking you questions, you probably be more inclined to tell them what they want to know.
A week is considered the beginning of long-term deprivation. Don't try and excuse the act of torture by claiming it's 'not that bad'; it's inhumane, hypocritical and immoral. Don't you know what sleep deprivation consists of? Ear-splitting white noise, 24 hour blinding lights, often combined with regular beatings, dousings in water, forced into stress positions (i.e. causing short or long term damage to muscles and extreme pain).
Not to mention that even short term sleep deprivation results in impairment of memory. Even if it works, the information becomes increasingly unreliable the longer it's applied.
Originally posted by Liberator
Not if you didn't know that you wouldn't be denied sleep after the session.
Oh, of course - if you sign whatevers put in front of you. So what you're saying is, torture someone for a week or so. And then, if they still don't talk, they're free to go?
Surely you understand how torture is used to extract statements - prolonged extreme suffering, until the torturer gets exactly the result they want?
Originally posted by Liberator
So you'd be okay with it if you and others knew...knew...that someone was going to kill someone else and the police didn't use psychologically harsh interogation methods to extract that that information?
How would you possibly know unless you already had that information via evidence?
And no, I wouldn't. Because what you're suggesting is a scenario where you use effectively the same technique the criminal is using. What you describe as psycholigically 'harsh', I presume still refers to the dangerous and unreliable methods used to torture out 'information'.
Originally posted by Bobboau
ok, lets look at three completely diferent situations that start initaly the same.
there is a guy, the police know he is connected with a disapearence of someone, but they can prove it.
a)they beat a confession out of him.
this isituation the confession is useless and should be throughen out.
b)they beat not only a confession out of him, but he also discloses the location of the body and the murder weapon and tests prove his fingerprints and the victim's blood are on the knife.
this situation produces physical evedence that they would not have otherwise gotten, the confession is not relevent, but the fact that he knew were the body and the murder weapon was, and that it had his prints and the victim's blood on it, prety much prove that he was in fact the killer.
c)they beat a confession out of him, as well the location of the victim they go out to a remote streach of woods and find the nearly dead victim locked in a basement of an old hunting cabbin. the victim then identifies the man as the person who abducted them.
in this case information wich saved a life was gained in addition to damning evedence. even if passive interogation would have provided the same information it likely would not have done so before the victim died.
and as usual the confession is worthless. information gained is not.
Bob; if there's enough evidence for the police to know the connection, then there's no need for torture in the first place. The justice system operates on a fundamental principle of innocent until proven guilty; even if the methods you describe were legal and not prohibited under any manner of local and international convention, they would still be being used against an innocent - unconvicted - suspect.
not only that - what if they person picked up in suspicion is innocent, and beaten until they confess to whatever the police want them to say? Because that's a lot easier - and more likely to happen - in a system permitting torture than getting the correct suspect and torturing them.
[q]"Intense pain is quite likely to produce false confessions, concocted as a means of escaping from distress… KUBARK (a codeword for the CIA) is especially vulnerable to such tactics because the interrogation is conducted for the sake of information." – CIA Vietnam-era interrogation manual[/q]
For me it's simple; torture is most effective as a form of terrorism, not intelligence gathering. This 'war on terror' is suppossed to be being fought (on face value) against despotic tyrants and terrorists. Both of these moral enemies are vilified for using torture in their interests. What right can we (the west / civillisation / the forces in Iraq - any definition you apply) possibly have for using it in our own, and saying we're better than them? Because our 'cause' is just? - isn't that what they'd say.
-
" if there's enough evidence for the police to know the connection"
it happens, a lot.
think about it this way, a large amount of cercomstantial evedence, that would almost asurably lose in court.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
" if there's enough evidence for the police to know the connection"
it happens, a lot.
think about it this way, a large amount of cercomstantial evedence, that would almost asurably lose in court.
So there's not enough information to prove the suspect guilty in court, you're saying.
-
This thread being still at the top of the forum is starting to bother me, so I figured I'd put in my $.02 about the current argument: from what I've read, it looks like the same "Liberator versus everything else." Liberator, just a tip: before you say a statement, even if you honestly believe in that statement, use a different example and see if you still think it's a good idea. If you think that someone beating someone up to get information is good, then fine. But before you state that, think it with two examples: A) using it with some Iraqi insurgent, and then, more importantly, B) use it with yourself.
If you're willing to say that it's ok for everyone to be beat up to be interrogated, including yourself, then I might not agree with your point of view, but I'll still respect it. Otherwise, your opinion means nil to me, because you're only viewing it from one side of the fence.
And anyway, if it was up to me? I can sit here and tell you that if I was kidnapped, and the only way that the police could find me was to legalize torture as an interrogation method, I would gladly die instead. I would not want something so aweful as torture to be inflicted on people.
-
well if you look carefully liborator isn't advocateing violent interogations, he's in favor of more passive pain, like sleep deprovation and chemical inducement, I'm the one sort of defending outright tourchure for information.
killing someone is not acceptable, permenantly mameing them is also not acceptable. asside frome that, *_if_ it produces results* (wich many people clame it doesn't, in wich case I'm against it as being a waist of time) I have no problem with it. so long as those conducting the interogation are absolutely sure that they are correct and are punished if proven wrong.
useing the police example again, if someone is beaten and then later proven innocent, then they would be intitled to major reporations, wich would have to come out of the individuals responcable for makeing the decision. at the very least, I don't think physical evedence gathered as a result of a beating should be tossed out as it is now.
-
Sleep deprivation, for example Chinese Water Torture is actually one of the most horrific forms of torture in many ways, it leaves mental scars that can last for the rest of the persons life. Lack of REM sleep for a long period of time can scar a person deeply.
Someone will admit to anything to be allowed to sleep.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web3/Ledoux.html
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
well if you look carefully liborator isn't advocateing violent interogations, he's in favor of more passive pain, like sleep deprovation and chemical inducement, I'm the one sort of defending outright tourchure for information.
killing someone is not acceptable, permenantly mameing them is also not acceptable. asside frome that, *_if_ it produces results* (wich many people clame it doesn't, in wich case I'm against it as being a waist of time) I have no problem with it. so long as those conducting the interogation are absolutely sure that they are correct and are punished if proven wrong.
useing the police example again, if someone is beaten and then later proven innocent, then they would be intitled to major reporations, wich would have to come out of the individuals responcable for makeing the decision. at the very least, I don't think physical evedence gathered as a result of a beating should be tossed out as it is now.
There's no such thing as 'passive pain'.... sleep deprivation, chemical inducement, etc are still torture, still prohibited, and still ****ing evil things to do to people. They're also still dangerous in terms of long term consequences.
It's erasy for people to downplay psychological torture, because they don't have the same mutilated, bloated bodies to look at in the papers the next day, and because mental damage and suffering isn't as easy to capture in a polaroid. These methods aren't used because they're 'kind', they're used because they cause pain in a different way to beatings. It's designed to destroy a human being, to make them completely mallable. And even that doesn't work (and this has been evidenced in many, many cases) in terms of extracting reliable information; even when the guy you torture tells you the truth, how can you extract it from the stuff he says to please the torturer?
(that's a reason why evidence gained from torture is not admissable; another obvious thing is that if someone is willing to beat a confession out a suspect, they're probably also willing to support it by planting or faking evidence against them - it throws the whole legitimacy of the criminal investigation into doubt)
You can only begin to even defend the use of torture in a system where you can prove guilt without a doubt, i.e. to prove that you're not torturing an innocent person. But that some system doesn't exist, and if it did we wouldn't need to use torture for information.
Reparations might sound a good idea, but what amount of money can compensate for being tortured? Even if the victim of torture isn't permanently physically damaged, they'll suffer the psychological consequences of it for years, maybe the rest of their life; how much money could compensate for such permanent trauma? And what of the people who die - even accidentally (from an undiagnosed heart defect, for example) under such interrogation?
I think the most illustrating thing about torture is that it's main uses have been as a form of terrorism by despotic governments. It's a method of inflicting pain, and then justifying it with the coerced information. It means everyone is guilty (no-one can hold out forever), so the state can repress, beat, imprison etc any and every person.
-
"but what amount of money can compensate for being tortured?"
I don't know, ten million sounds nice, and knowing the guy who beat you is haveing to pay it off even better.
if someone dies than who ever was in charge is ****ing screwed, neglegent homocide.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
"but what amount of money can compensate for being tortured?"
I don't know, ten million sounds nice, and knowing the guy who beat you is haveing to pay it off even better.
So, in other words you'd never see that amount of money.
I'm not sure any amount of money would compensate for the sort of extreme mental trauma caused by torture, anyways (I know that a group of British nationals suing the Saudi government after being tortured into confessing to what were militant bombings were each offered £1m 'hush' money from the Saudis and rejected it).
and who decides how much torture is 'worth', anyways? how do you place price tags on sleep deprivation versus water torture? How could you have a functional system that allows police torture of innocent civillians (remember, everyone is innocent until proven guilty), and yet which also places penalties upon the people told to follow those rules? And, would that mean a criminal convicted of assault, rape, etc could just as easily opt to pay instead of serve time?
Originally posted by Bobboau
if someone dies than who ever was in charge is ****ing screwed, neglegent homocide.
I'm sure that'd be a great consolation for the dead guy.
-
no you'd get it, in a lump, and the guy responcable would be paying for his mistake for the rest of his life.
you'd work it out like most things of this nature, you'd sue the guy(s), and get as much from he(them) as you can convince a jurry you deserve.
it'd be sort of like wrongful imprisonment.
"I'm sure that'd be a great consolation for the dead guy."
I'm sure letting a guy off who raped and ate a 6 year old because when the cops found him they beat the crap out of him is great consolation to the parents of the child.
go perfict world!
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
no you'd get it, in a lump, and the guy responcable would be paying for his mistake for the rest of his life.
you'd work it out like most things of this nature, you'd sue the guy(s), and get as much from he(them) as you can convince a jurry you deserve.
it'd be sort of like wrongful imprisonment.
So the state - the taxpayers - would finance it; how many police do you think make even a million in disposable income across their life?
And if it's an allowed part of a policemans job to torture suspects, what makes it fair to only allow them to torture guilty suspects when evidence obtained during torture is known to be unreliable and the justice system has to treat all suspects equally in terms of rights.
Are you suggesting the police should function on a basis of assumption of guilt? Otherwise when is torture allowed? After sufficient evidence to convict? Then what is it useful for?
When police are punished for the likes of wrongful imprisonment, it's because of a breach of protocol; incorrect procedure in investigation. What you suggest is a protocol which would legalise torture, but only within an ambiguous context post-conviction - and where the evidence obtained during that torture would be used to convict.
A system that would make it easier to beat a confession out of a suspect - even an innocent one - and get them convicted than it is to find the right suspect.
and what of unsolved cases, where no conviction is made? If all those suspects tortured and brutalised are never proven innocent by the conviction of another, isn't it just a mechanism to facilitate state terror?
Originally posted by Bobboau
"I'm sure that'd be a great consolation for the dead guy."
I'm sure letting a guy off who raped and ate a 6 year old because when the cops found him they beat the crap out of him is great consolation to the parents of the child.
go perfict world!
If the cops find him, and beat him, and the evidence that would be used to convict him is obtained from that, then the evidence itself is unsound and so is the conviction.
If the police have the evidence to convict him without beating him, then beating him is simply assault. Understandable in the circumstances, but still a criminal act in and of itself.