Khalid Shaikh Mohammed...should they torture him?

bonkey

Originally posted by xm15e3
We won't torture the Panty waste simply because we want reliable information. Torturing people will get them to say whatever they think will stop the pain. We want facts so we can kill his friends as efficiently as possible.

Torture is only useful to the sadistic for get their little rocks off. Now, providing discomfort (by stuffing him in a box ala "Gimp"), sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, fatigue, hunger, ect. Those are useful ways to "Break the Ice" in the conversation. It works wonderfully.

Pulled from random sites by throwing the words "sleep deprivation Geneva Convention" and "sensory deprivation torture" into google :

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, the authoritative interpreter of the international Convention Against Torture, has ruled that lengthy interrogation may incidentally and legitimately cost a prisoner sleep. But when employed for the purpose of breaking a prisoner's will, sleep deprivation "may in some cases constitute torture."

The State Department's annual human rights report routinely denounces sleep deprivation as an interrogation method. In its 2001 report on Turkey, Israel and Jordan, all U.S. allies, the department listed sleep deprivation among often-used alleged torture techniques.

Goodness. The US State Department decries sleep deprivation as a torture technique, as does the UN.

As for sensory dep.....

thereby enhancing the overall effect of sensory deprivation; a form of torture expressly prohibited in America and most other civilized nations.

Oops...there we go again. The US decries sensory deprivation as torture

Not in the English language

Guess your version of the English language isnt the same one used by your government or other western powers.

It is interesting to note, however, that the dictionary apparently employed by the US government appears to have changed its meanings somewhat since the creation of Camp X-Ray. Not that the US is in any way unique in this regard....

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Oops...there we go again. The US decries sensory deprivation as torture .... It is interesting to note, however, that the dictionary apparently employed by the US government appears to have changed its meanings somewhat since the creation of Camp X-Ray. Not that the US is in any way unique in this regard....

The US constitution and Bill of Rights only extends to citizens / those in the USA, not to those outside. Remember the USA is a constitutional democracy, if the constitution doesn't prohibit something the governemt is allowed do it.

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
The US constitution and Bill of Rights only extends to citizens / those in the USA, not to those outside. Remember the USA is a constitutional democracy, if the constitution doesn't prohibit something the governemt is allowed do it.

Yes, but when that nation also condemns the use of such techniques by other nations as a method of torture, it would be nothing short of hypocrisy in the extreme for them to claim otherwise for themselves.

They may not break any US laws in doing so, but they have classified it as torture.

Interestingly...does US law not apply to the torturer, and anyone in the chain of command who would be aware of the actions if they are American, or is it only that its illegal to torture Americans?

jc

Clintons Cat

The US constitution and Bill of Rights only extends to citizens / those in the USA, not to those outside. Remember the USA is a constitutional democracy, if the constitution doesn't prohibit something the governemt is allowed do it.

Which is why Camp X-ray is at Guatamo bay,Cuba rather than on US soil.

Its kind of bizarre that pre sept 2001,if someone had claimed the US were planning to hold political prisoners in Cuba in violation of the Geneva Convention 1 and the spirit of the us constitution.And subject them to sensory and sleep deprivation and Then they would have been laughed off the soap-box as tin-foil hatted fools.

1 Are they still being held as Battlefield Detainees?

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Interestingly...does US law not apply to the torturer, and anyone in the chain of command who would be aware of the actions if they are American, or is it only that its illegal to torture Americans?

Laws usually attach to a crime i.e. location (specific exemptions are being made to jurisdiction for child abuse and crimes against humanity). The US military are obliged to follow all orders, not just lawful orders (as it is in many other countries).

Cork

I don't think this guy should be tortured. Interrogated? Yes.

The people who go on about Guatamo miss the point of September 11th.

What justice did the people of the Twin Towers get. This was an evil and calas act. Just as the suicide bombers are doing nothing for the Palastenians. Al- Queda are doing nothing only inflicting hurt & despair.

It is crazy for "do-gooders" coming out in defence of past members of Al-Queda. These terrorists did not give a hoot about human life.

Clintons Cat

so try them for their crimes.
Just like John Walker Lindh.

FreeJohn Walker.Net
Observer
Lew Rockwells Voice Of Reason Half Hour

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
What justice did the people of the Twin Towers get.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Originally posted by Cork
It is crazy for "do-gooders" coming out in defence of past members of Al-Queda. These terrorists did not give a hoot about human life.

First, what is the proximity of these individuals to the events of Sept. 11th? sEcond, if no one defends the rights of prisoners, where do we draw the line on who to defend at all?

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

PS I think there are different versions of this, but the sentiment is the same.

Hobbes

Originally posted by xm15e3
Not in the English language

You might want to go read up on history concerning "Internment". According to the English language it is torture.

Here is a link to start you off...

We consider that the following actions constitute physical ill-treatment; posture on the wall, hooding, noise, deprivation of sleep, diet of bread and water.

You will also find more on the effects of what happended to the people who went through it.

Starvation is more an exaggeration, I should have called it Caloric Reduction Therapy. They are fed, just not enough to feel spunky and chipper.

Also want to read up on torture and effects? try this link

What are the most common forms of torture?

Physical torture may include suspension, beatings, electric shock, deprivation of food and water, sexual abuse and forced ingestion of chemicals. Other types of torture that have primarily psychological effects include solitary confinement, threats, witnessed torture or execution, sham executions, deprivation of sleep, and monopolization of perception.

Of course that's an American site listing places in America to deal with the effects of Torture, so America at least knows exactly what torture is.

What justice did the people of the Twin Towers get

I don't mean to be calas, but they're dead. Justice is not going to matter one way or another to them.

And i don't see justice comes in the form of torturing people, or the bombing of foreign cities. Don't talk about Justice when all people want is revenge.

Al- Queda are doing nothing only inflicting hurt & despair

And fear. Don't forget that below this rightous anger that Americans have, a fear simmers. So in a way Al- Queda have succeeded in some of their goals.

It is crazy for "do-gooders" coming out in defence of past members of Al-Queda

They're not defending Al-Queda members, or what Al-Queda members have done in the past. I thought you would understand since you're always talking about Human Rights. Well let me explain it a bit. Even the lowest scum of the earth, has basic human rights. What America is doing is taking those away. That's what is wrong.

Two wrongs do not make a right

Exactly. But you'll find that America will take that concept a few steps further, by blaming Iraq, Iran, & possibly N.Korea for the Sept 11.

The US military are obliged to follow all orders, not just lawful orders (as it is in many other countries).

Actually they're not. Due to changes in military law after ww2, the laws were changed. Considering what German troops did while under Orders, the world decided that excuse could not be available to any troops. Most Armies out there will have a clause whereby a soldier can question & refuse an order, they deem to be breaking the Geneva Convention, or the conventions of their own armed forces.

Following an order is no excuse.

Also, most military forces garrisoned in foreign nations will be obliged to follow the host country's laws. The base itself is american property, but the host nation has some juristiction.

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
The US military are obliged to follow all orders, not just lawful orders (as it is in many other countries).

Sorry, what I mean is they have to follow all orders and are liable to US law / the chain of command on them. International law is another matter.

Sorry, what I mean is they have to follow all orders and are liable to US law / the chain of command on them

I understand, and to a certain degree i agree. However, when the american soldier is ordered to gas ten thousand people, there is a regulation/guideline whereby the soldier has the right (without receiving a court marshel) to refuse.

Basically, soldiers if ordered to torture, do not have to do so.

But outside of these circumstances then yes, the soldier is reliant upon the laws of the US, and its chain of command.

Cork

There is a big differance between the US army and terrorist groups intent in causing misery to the people of the US or Israel.

There was debate on Red FM last night (www.redfm.ie) on this subject. Certain groups within our socierty were criticised for advocating a victim mentality to excuse acts of terrorism.

There is a big differance between the US army and terrorist groups intent in causing misery to the people of the US or Israel.

big difference? i don't see it that way. If the US army bombs civilian centres, and a terrorist bombs a civilian area, i count both as being terrorism. It doesn't make the act ok, if its an actual army or a recognised nation.

bug

In relation to torturing/killing suspected Al Qaeda members..(trying to link this up, its not worth a new thread) There was an article yesterday on BBC world news about two suspected Al Qaeda members who were prounouced murdered on post-mortem whilst in th custody of american soldiers in Afghanistan on a base. I can't find it now on the site..did anyone else see it? Am I imagining things....again....Please dont bash me moderators!

gandalf

No bug your right I saw it there myself as well. Should have fired it up myself. I'll see if I can find it.

Gandalf.

gandalf

From the UK Independent newspaper

America admits suspects died in interrogations
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
07 March 2003


American military officials acknowledged yesterday that two prisoners captured in Afghanistan in December had been killed while under interrogation at Bagram air base north of Kabul – reviving concerns that the US is resorting to torture in its treatment of Taliban fighters and suspected al-Qa'ida operatives.

A spokesman for the air base confirmed that the official cause of death of the two men was "homicide", contradicting earlier accounts that one had died of a heart attack and the other from a pulmonary embolism.

The men's death certificates, made public earlier this week, showed that one captive, known only as Dilawar, 22, from the Khost region, died from "blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease" while another captive, Mullah Habibullah, 30, suffered from blood clot in the lung that was exacerbated by a "blunt force injury".

US officials previously admitted using "stress and duress" on prisoners including sleep deprivation, denial of medication for battle injuries, forcing them to stand or kneel for hours on end with hoods on, subjecting them to loud noises and sudden flashes of light and engaging in culturally humiliating practices such as having them kicked by female officers.

While the US claims this still constitutes "humane" treatment, human rights groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have denounced it as torture as defined by international treaty. The US has also come under heavy criticism for its reported policy of handing suspects over to countries such as Jordan, Egypt or Morocco, where torture techniques are an established part of the security apparatus. Legally, Human Rights Watch says, there is no distinction between using torture directly and subcontracting it out.

Some American politicians have argued that torture could be justified in this case if it helped prevent terror attacks on US citizens. Jonathan Turley, a prominent law professor at George Washington University, countered that embracing torture would be "suicide for a nation once viewed as the very embodiment of human rights".

Torture is part of a long list of concerns about the Bush administration's respect for international law, after the extrajudicial killing of al-Qa'ida suspects by an unmanned drone in Yemen and the the indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a number of whom have committed or attempted to commit suicide.

President Bush appeared to encourage extra-judicial solutions in his State of the Union address in January when he talked of al-Qa'ida members being arrested or meeting "a different fate". "Let's put it this way," he said in a tone that appalled many, "they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=384604

Some American politicians have argued that torture could be justified in this case if it helped prevent terror attacks on US citizens

strange, sounds alot like Hitler justifying gassing the Jews. They were a threat to the Third Reich so any methods are acceptable. Nice justification.

(before anyone jumps in, i am not comparing the US with Nazi Germany, I am comparing the argument)

Cork

These are members of Al-Queda. I hope Mary Robinson does issue a statement on the Al-Queda members in Cuba. It is amazing She is not making statements on this.

What Al-Queda was responsible for was the horror of 9/11.

They sat down & planned this carnage.

These were members of an organisation that planned these acts.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
These are members of Al-Queda. I hope Mary Robinson does issue a statement on the Al-Queda members in Cuba. It is amazing She is not making statements on this.

What Al-Queda was responsible for was the horror of 9/11.

They sat down & planned this carnage.

These were members of an organisation that planned these acts.

And what part of this means that these humans should be denied rights which signatory nations of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights have declared inalienable?

I saw a comment recently that it is no longer the case that the victors write history...the victors now write dictionaries. This strikes me as a classic case, because statements like that from Bush, and indeed Cork's followup argument seems to be doing just that.

Unkess, of course, Cork would like to explain why inalienable rights do not apply to some people.

jc

Originally posted by klaz
strange, sounds alot like Hitler justifying gassing the Jews. They were a threat to the Third Reich so any methods are acceptable. Nice justification.

Err... no.
since the Jews weren't bombing or planning the propegation of their faith by violent means during and prior to the third Reich.
You cannot make that comparison.

I agree though, that all the Al Q'ueda members need is due process, not torture.
Lets not drag ourselves down to their level.
Their leaders and followers can be humiliated enough by seeing that their actions are neither working nor have any hope of working , without subjecting the captured ones to torture.
mm

Cork

Originally posted by bonkey
And what part of this means that these humans should be denied rights which signatory nations of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights have declared inalienable?

I saw a comment recently that it is no longer the case that the victors write history...the victors now write dictionaries. This strikes me as a classic case, because statements like that from Bush, and indeed Cork's followup argument seems to be doing just that.

Unkess, of course, Cork would like to explain why inalienable rights do not apply to some people.

jc

inalienable rights should apply to all - those in Iraq, Agganistan, the Twin Towers, Balli & Israel. The people of who died in the Twin Towers were robbed of their most basic right - the right to life.


Under Al- Queda - the people of Agganistan did not enjoy inalienable human rights. Saddam is no advocate of human rights.

UN Resolution 1441 called for immediate and complete disarmament of itself of its prohibited weapons - what words does Saddam understand?

He is not known for complying with UN resolutions.

He is fine and giving orders but alas not taking them.

I think - the UN and US should rise above AL-Queda & Saddam and should maintain prisoners rights are not violated.

PHB

Ok, so just to confirm.

Its ok to torture someone if you really really want the information.

And as they say, Justice is in the eye of the beholder, who are we to judge, what right we have to decide who is tortured?
Are we infallable, I think not.

Zaphod B

Generally I avoid the Politics forum but can't really ignore a question like that. Openly condone torture... how about we bring back public hanging while we're at it?

Torture is NEVER acceptable, but its even worse when its done by countries who enjoy a reputation of upholding civil and human rights. Americans have already started signing away their own civil rights in the name of 'patriotism', now they're happy to abandon human rights too, and you think we should go along with them on that?

Let's be honest here, the US has used torture, probably on those in Guantanamo bay and many others, and are definitely torturing this guy. That doesn't make it right.

Frankly I'm fed up of people trying to condone the removal of civil and human rights as being for a morally acceptable purpose.
An American officer torturing a prisoner is EVERY BIT AS BAD as an Iraqi officer or anyone else torturing a prisoner. Torture is torture. It's NEVER acceptable, and if you're willing to condone torture then frankly you might as well be condoning the actions of Saddam or any other despotic psychopath.

Lets not forget Al Qaeda members don't wear Al Qaeda T-shirts and name badges. The US is hunting and detaining terrorism SUSPECTS. Now let's at least have the sense to admit the CIA, FBI etc do on occasion totally fvck up. Only next time it might not be some tourist getting mistaken for a fraudster and locked up for weeks before the FBI realise their mistake. Next time it could be someone thought to be a member of Al Qaeda, taken away, tortured and then forgotten while the US media/public is too 'patriotic' to care and the rest of the world's media/public is too 'sympathetic' to care. Even under non-physical torture people can be persuaded to confess to things they've never done. Put the proponents of torture in that position and I'm not sure they'd be so willing to condone it being used on them...

PS...
You can't fight a war against terror... Justice and revenge are not the same... You can't use the same methods as the 'bad guy' and still remain the 'good guy'... just to put to rest some of the MOST ****ING RIDICULOUS arguments I've ever heard.

Cork

Originally posted by Zaphod B

Torture is NEVER acceptable

I think the Guantanamo bay detentions are being monitored by civil rights groups. But I agree Torture is NEVER acceptable.

But niether was the tageting of people on 9/11 or suicide bombers out in Israel.

In Ireland - We had the horror of Omagh. We know the horrors of a blatent dis-regard for human life. We also know that it it is wrong to beat confessions out of people.

but its even worse when its done by countries who enjoy a reputation of upholding civil and human rights. Americans have already started signing away their own civil rights in the name of 'patriotism',

US bashing agaiin. What rights do the Iraqi people have? What rights had the people in Afganastan under Al-Queda? Civil Rights don't really metter much in the middle east. Womens Rights & Democracy need to be encouraged. Dictatorships, Princes and Kings need to be replaced with democracy.

Then the people might get the right to vote. This is a right that very few of them have.

(* I am 100% aganist all forms of torture.)

since the Jews weren't bombing or planning the propegation of their faith by violent means during and prior to the third Reich.

Thats not what i meant. From the statement that bush made he viewed any response allowable to protect his country from "terrorists". Hitler viewed the Jews as a corruption within Germany & the world. He took his own steps to take care of that threat. That is my comparison.

inalienable rights should apply to all - those in Iraq, Agganistan, the Twin Towers, Balli & Israel. The people of who died in the Twin Towers were robbed of their most basic right - the right to life.

The right to life? so that doesn't apply to the people who plan these attacks? I might not like what they do, but they have the right to be tried fairly and charged for their crimes. Not tortured.

Under Al- Queda - the people of Agganistan did not enjoy inalienable human rights. Saddam is no advocate of human rights

I agree. He's not. But do you really expect thats going to instantly change when the US enter Iraq? Its not. There's not point giving someone the "right to live" if you've just accidently killed them in an artillery barrage.

However, for the US to torture prisoners, they're not exactly observing the prisoners rights.

He is fine and giving orders but alas not taking them.

When did the UN become the rulers of Iraq? He is obliged to follow their regulations/mandates etc purely as a member of the UN, and as a conquered nation. But He is still the ruler of Iraq, he doesn't have to follow the orders of an organisation, that is fragmenting from within.

You can't fight a war against terror... Justice and revenge are not the same...

I agree totally. This is no longer about Justice. Its purely revenge.

I think the Guantanamo bay detentions are being monitored by civil rights groups. But I agree Torture is NEVER acceptable

'm sure thats going to comfort these prisoners, since these groups cannot interfere with the process, nor is the world liable to disagree with the US for long about these prisoners.

US bashing agaiin. What rights do the Iraqi people have? What rights had the people in Afganastan under Al-Queda? Civil Rights don't really metter much in the middle east. Womens Rights & Democracy need to be encouraged. Dictatorships, Princes and Kings need to be replaced with democracy.

US bashing? Hmm... then u must be an Iraq Basher. Cork, what rights do the leaders of Iraq have? what rights does anyone have? Are you going to tell me that its ok to be totally selective of the rights for each person?

Originally posted by klaz
Thats not what i meant. From the statement that bush made he viewed any response allowable to protect his country from "terrorists". Hitler viewed the Jews as a corruption within Germany & the world. He took his own steps to take care of that threat. That is my comparison.

But how can you make that comparison?
There is a huge gap between a terrorist threat which involves suicide bombing alq'ueda style to U.S targets and the political/economic and business threat posed by the Jews to the Third Reich.
mm

Cork

When did the UN become the rulers of Iraq?

If Iraq is invaded the UN may become involved in Iraq.

But hopefully Saddam will have come to his senses & comply with UN resolutions before that.

Do you agree that he should comply with resolution 1441?

There is a huge gap between a terrorist threat which involves suicide bombing alq'ueda style to U.S targets and the political/economic and business threat posed by the Jews to the Third Reich.

I'm not comparing the level of threat. I'm comparing the perception of whats allowed to protect ones country. Bush is willing to break every international law to protect his country. Its not whether Bush kills millions of people like Hitler did, but rather the fact that they're both willing to go that extra step beyond normal conventions.

If Iraq is invaded the UN may become involved in Iraq.

Cork, the UN is already involved with Iraq. Or haven't you heard of the UN sanctions for the last 12 years?

But you didn't answer the question. When did the UN become the rulers of Iraq?

But hopefully Saddam will have come to his senses & comply with UN resolutions before that.

Which resolutions? Which ones? The outstanding ones, or the call that America is shouting for in total disarmament? I mean, do you really think any country out there should be told to surrender all their defenses? And i'm not talking about just Iraq, since if this really does happen, there will be precedent for them to apply it to any nation.

Do you agree that he should comply with resolution 1441?

Yes. I do. However i don't think it should go beyond that. Total disarmament was not part of 1441.

But cork, do u think that sanctions should be dropped if Saddam did comply totally with 1441? Would you really be prepared to back down if he did comply? Would you still support invasion if this happened?

Because i know i don't. I believe all nations have the "right" to have the ability to defend themselves. I'm not talking about WMD's, i'm talking about common defense principles. Also, i don't believe that Iraq should still have sanctions against it, should it actually comply. I also think, that if America invades Iraq, despite Saddam, complying the UN should bring action both military & economic against the US.

This is not "US bashing". This is about having equal standards. Iraq messed up 12 years ago, and have been messing since to a much lesser degree. Should the US mess up this time, they should be treated with the same measures.

Because lets face it. America's proposed invasion of Iraq, is basically based on the same principles of the attack on Kuwait. The lack of co-operation is just a convenient excuse.