Comments on: U.S. Military Bars Some Iraq Interrogation Methods

U.S. Military Bars Some Iraq Interrogation Methods

Postroad — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:01:27 -0800

U.S. Military Bars Some Iraq Interrogation Methods ...The officials said the decision was made on Thursday by the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, on the same day that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld met with him on a surprise trip to the country and visited the Abu Ghraib facility on the outskirts of Baghdad. .. Is this a tacit admission that what took place was not simply rogue actions by individuals but rather military folks following orders of some kind? And, then, why do the new ground rules apply just to Iraq and not to other places?

By: kaemaril

kaemaril — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:56:37 -0800

Hmm. So, "stress positions", sleep deprivation, dietary manipulation, etc are out (even though they're all COMPLETELY LEGAL! No, honest!) BUT: "From that list, Sanchez has decided to continue to allow jailers to request the option of isolating a prisoner for more than 30 days at a time, officials said." And here's the third paragraph of Article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of Prisoners Of War: No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. Ya think "isolating" people for 30 days or more might be considered "disadvantageous"? Even when they're backing down, they STILL can't get it right.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Fri, 14 May 2004 18:18:23 -0800

Liberal pussies. It's a war. These are hardcore evil people. Torture no. Fear, sleep and psychological pain, yes. And yes, please, more panties on heads!

By: kaemaril

kaemaril — Fri, 14 May 2004 18:33:25 -0800

"Torture no. Fear, sleep and psychological pain, yes". Fear, sleep (deprivation) and psychological pain ARE torture. It may not be high-voltage to the gonads, or yanking finger nails out with pliars, but it's still torture. Also, these are not "hardcore evil people", these are people who even the US administration have now admitted should be treated as prisoners of war. POWs are not "hardcore evil people" by default.

By: cell divide

cell divide — Fri, 14 May 2004 18:35:02 -0800

I am against torture, but something to consider-- The Geneva Convetions are designed when 2 armies (of whatever size) are fighting each other. They might apply well for the majority of the rebellion, but what about the Al Qaeda tactic of blowing up trucks in crowded areas, like during Shia religious holidays (like the Ashura bombs which killed 180 Shias)? Should they not be able to use light/sound/sleep deprivation, etc. to get information about impending terror attacks against Iraqi civilians? I don't know, but it seems to me if I were Iraqi, and foreign terrorists were planning to kill my civilians, I might be in favor of the 'light' brand of torture, stuff that is described above. I'm not sure. Some people say it's not effective anyway which is a whole different issue. I guess what I'm pointing to is that the war in Iraq, while in some ways a classic guerilla war, also has elements of terrorism which fall outside the realm of ordinary fighting. What to do about that? It's a hard question. What will the Iraqis do when they take control?

By: kaemaril

kaemaril — Fri, 14 May 2004 18:44:14 -0800

> Should they not be able to use light/sound/sleep deprivation, etc. to get information about impending terror attacks against Iraqi civilians? Hmm. Well, that's an interesting question. Since we're so worried about the safety of Iraqi civilians here... should the Saddam regime not have been able to use light/sound/sleep deprivation, etc. against captured US troops to get information about impending bombing missions against Baghdad, since that might have hurt Iraqi civilians? I'm guessing Messrs Bush, Rumsfeld etc might have had conniptions if that argument were tried.

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Fri, 14 May 2004 19:16:46 -0800

It's not a new debate... if you could prevent the deaths of hundreds by torturing one person, should it be done? Many say no because the question of where to draw the line is so hard to answer. I personally believe that when dealing with a known terrorist - not a suspect - this sort of thing may be justified to prevent attacks. Terrorism is a form of warfare where "fight fire with fire" actually makes sense. While this doesn't apply to the underlying causes of current terrorism, it does apply to existing terrorist networks. POWs are not "hardcore evil people" by default. Granted that some of Saddam's torturers (I take no responsibility for the credibility of the link, but you've all heard of the horrors) are now prisoners of war, I doubt you can safely declare that *none* of them are "hardcore evil people."

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Fri, 14 May 2004 19:17:49 -0800

Hmm. Well, that's an interesting question. Since we're so worried about the safety of Iraqi civilians here... should the Saddam regime not have been able to use light/sound/sleep deprivation, etc. against captured US troops to get information about impending bombing missions against Baghdad, since that might have hurt Iraqi civilians? For someone trying to be devil's advocate, I'd think you could do better. The idea of Saddam protecting Iraqis is laughable and you know it.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Fri, 14 May 2004 19:40:11 -0800

These are hardcore evil people. Except for the 70 to 90 percent arrested by mistake, one would hope.

By: gesamtkunstwerk

gesamtkunstwerk — Fri, 14 May 2004 19:41:07 -0800

Liberal pussies. It's a war. These are hardcore evil people. Torture no. Fear, sleep and psychological pain, yes. Hmm. Even the army admits that these techniques are better at getting people to say what you want to hear, than getting real information. I don't know how to respond *shudder*. It's wrong on so many levels-- moral, pragmatic, etc.

By: soulhuntre

soulhuntre — Fri, 14 May 2004 20:26:24 -0800

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." Thus showing why the Geneva conventions have been broken by every army everywhere since their inception. You know, torture (as in the infliction of extreme mental or physical duress) often leads (not always, but often) to incorrect information and is additionally morally wrong. But the idea that you cannot cause any duress whatsoever on someone during an interrogation is so ludicrously unrealistic that it makes the whole Geneva accord something far to easily ignored. No matter what you do your breaking it... and that always trivializes a law ro protocol.

By: a3matrix

a3matrix — Fri, 14 May 2004 21:31:26 -0800

I thought the war ended last year? Where have I been...

By: homunculus

homunculus — Fri, 14 May 2004 22:28:58 -0800

How evidence obtained through coercion is undermining the legal war on terrorism.

By: Mars Saxman

Mars Saxman — Fri, 14 May 2004 23:47:54 -0800

Liberal pussies. It's a war. These are hardcore evil people. You are a troll, yes?

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Fri, 14 May 2004 23:55:14 -0800

Liberal pussies. It's a war. These are hardcore evil people. Torture no. Fear, sleep and psychological pain, yes. And yes, please, more panties on heads! Oh my. Such talk about loving pain and wearing panties. FreedomParamus is a sexually troubled person engaging in dangerous activities. Because we care about him and those tempted to join him, it is important that we neither encourage nor legitimize such a destructive lifestyle. Discuss.

By: kaemaril

kaemaril — Sat, 15 May 2004 02:52:00 -0800

Krrrlson> I doubt you can safely declare that *none* of them are "hardcore evil people." Hence why I said "by default" instead of a blanket statement. Yes, there could be bad people in there. > For someone trying to be devil's advocate, I'd think you could do better. The idea of Saddam protecting Iraqis is laughable and you know it. Why? Just because you're an "evil, ruthless dictator" doesn't mean you don't care about the welfare of your people. Especially when SOME of those people are your powerbase, and especially when you're in the middle of a war and you can get brownie points by "defending your people from the ruthless aggressors".

By: caddis

caddis — Sat, 15 May 2004 03:06:24 -0800

Incredible. Incredible, that I had to hear my government say that we will no longer torture POWs (correction - they aren't really POWs and it really isn't torture, but we are stopping anyway).

By: Mo Nickels

Mo Nickels — Sat, 15 May 2004 05:12:07 -0800

A report was released just before the torture lite scandals broke by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, called Human rights standards applicable to the United States' interrogation of detainees (PDF, 1.1MB). It's conclusion (now common knowledge, but then a scoop): "that individuals detained by the United States at its military and intelligence facilities in connection with the initial War in Afghanistan and the subsequent ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, are being subjected to interrogation techniques that constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."

By: Cyrano

Cyrano — Sat, 15 May 2004 05:13:55 -0800

I *heart* XQUZYPHYR.

By: sic

sic — Sat, 15 May 2004 07:35:23 -0800

Victims of torture Torturers are cowards. Pudgy keyboard jockeys that defend torture, like X, Y and Z* are less than cowards and should spend time exploring the links provided. *Hint, they have posted to this thread.

By: Blue Stone

Blue Stone — Sat, 15 May 2004 07:40:25 -0800

Anything can be torture. A dripping tap. A dripping tap on your forehead. A tap on your shoulder repeated without end. A drop of water? Torture? What pussies! Anyone in favour of Torture Lite™ would surely be able to withstand such a girl's torture. Please form an orderly queue.

By: caddis

caddis — Sat, 15 May 2004 08:00:49 -0800

Pentagon officials admit interrogation techniques approved for use in Iraq violate the Geneva Convention. Sen. Jack Reed asked Pace if a foreign nation held a U.S. Marine in a cell, naked with a bag over his head, squatting with his arms uplifted for 45 minutes, whether would that be a good interrogation technique or a Geneva Convention violation. "I would describe it as a violation, sir," replied Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "As I read General Sanchez's guidance, precisely that behavior could have been employed in Iraq," said Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat. Reed then asked Wolfowitz a similar question. Wolfowitz initially tried to sidestep it, but eventually replied, "What you've described to me sounds, to me, like a violation of the Geneva Convention."

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sat, 15 May 2004 14:17:45 -0800

The Gray Zone "The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld's decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America's prospects in the war on terror."

By: riviera

riviera — Sat, 15 May 2004 15:46:45 -0800

Since the summer is a bad time for television, could someone please make a reality programme entitled: 'Subject PeePee to treatment he doesn't regard as torture, and watch him cry like a baby'?

By: trondant

trondant — Sat, 15 May 2004 16:03:53 -0800

Dear Penthouse: I never believed the letters I read here, but since deciding it is liberal, my pussy has raised taxes, let negroes and wimmen vote, declined to prosecute Greenpeace for terrorism, appointed activist judges, grabbed my guns, sent my taxes to the UN, pardoned trees with regards to their responsibility in contributing to global warming, taken Heinz ketchup off the list of vegetables, let teh gay be married, shipped babies wholesale to Hillary! so that she can bathe in their blood (thereby maintaining her evil superpowers,) arrogantly set unfair and arbitrary rules the movers and shakers of our private sector are forced (now disarmed) AT GUNPOINT to follow, sent good Americans to re-education camps because they use too much oil, abrogated states' rights since 1864, legalized prostitution marihuana and miscegenation (not to mention plugging glowsticks into foreigners' assholes,) fucked my dog in the ass, raised taxes again, driven God-fearing Christians from their burning homes, murdering, raping and pillaging all the way, sold America out to those dirty Chinks, raped State Troopers, interns and any small mammals who got too close, raised taxes again, taught our children that meat eaters are worse than dirty dirt, and banned cigarettes. My concern is that my asshole might be a liberal too. Yours in Christ, Trondant P.S. Hitler was a liberal! P.P.S. Can someone change my diaper?

By: fullerine

fullerine — Sat, 15 May 2004 16:56:07 -0800

Bush : "Constitution Check, Geneva Convention Check, what else needs updating?" Rummy : "The Bible?" Bush : "Somebody get Mel Gibson on the phone"

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sun, 16 May 2004 10:47:46 -0800

Some Chinese See Positive Lessons in Iraqi 'Torture Gate'

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sun, 16 May 2004 18:02:56 -0800

Shadow on the U.S. Beacon