America, land of torture? It can't happen here...

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Postby Shapley » Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:56 am

Since we've done a little guerrilla action ourselves, we should understand the utility of that.


If you're referring to the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, there was no Geneva Convention in place to protect them. However, even then, the wearing of a uniform in combat afforded the captured protections that were not afforded to non-uniformed combatants. Those engaging in combat operations do so recognizing that, while it does give them an advantage in urban combat, it also strips them of protection should they be captured. It's a trade-off some see as worthwhile, most do not.

You have to admit that our troops are at a distinct disadvantage militarily by virtue of their attire, and the fact that our vehicles have distinctive markings and colour to help them to be indentified, both by their fellows and by the enemy. Why not send them into battle dressed like the local population and driving unmarked cars, trucks, and vans?
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby piqaboo » Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:05 pm

A question I am sure is under discussion in at least some parts of the military. On the otherhand, those fancy vehicles do offer a tad of height and armor.
Altoid - curiously strong.
piqaboo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 7135
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Paradise (So. Cal.)

Postby Shapley » Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:24 pm

Yeah, but you can heavily armour a Volvo. I've seen on "James Bond"...

:D

Seriously, it is a problem when you send uniformed troops into battle with non-uniformed combatants. You do so knowing that they are at a disadvantage, and you hope that their training and superior firepower will even up the advantage. You also have to accept that the uniform services will be at a disadvantage in that they are compelled to abide by rules that the other side ignores.

This is why police use undercover officers, and the military uses spies. It gives them access to persons and places that cannot be accessed by uniformed personnel, at least not without loss of whatever it is they seek to garner from it. Persons going into situations under those conditions are aware that they place themselves at risk by doing so, and that the uniformed services may not be able to come their assistance should the situation turn against them.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby BigJon » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:21 am

piqaboo wrote:
BigJon wrote:What are the rules when un-uniformed, possibly stateless, combatants take up arms against U.S. forces? Where should we send them when they are captured? Should we bring 'em all here to the mainland and put them through the criminal justice system?


The British had that problem some 230 years ago....

BTW - Empress Maria Theresa codified her empires acceptable "interrogation techniques", including detailed instructions and drawings on how to perform each. Doesnt make it less horrific.

"They are not eligible because they dont wear uniforms" is pathetic.
We are not fighting an army that issues uniforms. Since we've done a little guerrilla action ourselves, we should understand the utility of that.

We're trading freedom for the illusion of security. It scares me.

You didn't answer the question. Shall I repharase it? What should we do with them today?
Even a blind nut finds a squirrel once in a while. – Me! Feb 9, 2001
BigJon
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1155
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Postby Haggis@wk » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:09 am

Saddam's men filmed murder of two soldiers

” IRAQI officers loyal to Saddam Hussain filmed their cold-blooded murder of two British bomb disposal officers who were captured after a roadside ambush.
An inquest was told that Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth, 36, and Sapper Luke Allsopp, 24, thought that they were being taken to hospital for treatment, but instead they were moved to a compound run by Saddam’s military intelligence.
The harrowing ordeal lasted for hours until Iraqi agents killed the pair. The soldiers were buried in a shallow grave.”


I believe that the U.S. and the U.K. are the only two major powers in the world that have demonstrably proven they honor the Geneva Convention and in the case of the U.S., exceed those conventions. It appears that the only benefit has been bragging rights and even those are discounted by most of the world and America’s liberals.

When I was a kid I worked for a German who owed a dress shop in Ft. Walton Bch, FL who had been a PoW in WWII and after he was released applied to immigrate to the U.S. because he loved it and the way he was treated.

I suspect OT and Shapely both remember GC classes when they joined the military and I certainly recall the refresher classes and Rules of Engagement classes before the 1st Gulf War and going into Somalia.

The incident above highlight the barbarity most signatories of the GC revert to when they are actually expected to uphold them.

The British soldiers were captured during open hostilities and in uniform, and should have received POW status. Instead, Saddam's officer corps decided to execute them, and to film their crime as well.

Ironically Iraq signed the “original” GC in 1956 but never adopted the first of two "Protocols" which were "adopted" in 1977 and which expanded the definition of a POW to include pretty much anyone with a weapon (or even bad intent) who gets caught during a military operation. Under this definition the so-called "enemy combatants" picked up by the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq would clearly be covered.

Fortunately, the United States never signed either Protocol I or II. Neither did Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq, which pretty much covers most of the places we have been picking these guys up.

Countries refused to sign these Protocols because they effectively extend the rights afforded to POWs in The Third Geneva Convention to guerillas including those who would operate out of uniform within civilian populations (as has been the case in Iraq).

Given that these Protocols were promulgated while Jimmy Carter was in office - and that he is such a strong proponent of them - you'd think he'd remember that the U.S. Senate told him to stick those Protocols in his ear when he was President. It's worth nothing that this was during a time when the Democrats controlled the Executive branch and both houses of Congress - even they wouldn't go along with Carter's absurdist utopian vision. To this day, these protocols have been left untouched by the United States through five presidencies - Democrats and Republicans alike.

Treating the GC as some sort of talisman that will ward off the brutality of tyrants allows people to fall prey to a utopianism that simply does not exist in modern warfare between any nations except those in the West -- and since the advent of democracy, those nations do not war with each other. And even at that, Germany certainly qualified as a Western country during World War II and still dispensed with the GC in all but the thinnest veneer of appearances.

The coroner's finding and the film of the execution does bring up an interesting question. Will Britain charge Saddam Hussein and the army officers in custody with war crimes? Saddam likely will not survive the trials he already faces with the Iraqis, but the British should consider formal charges against Saddam and his henchmen for this crime. If people want to invoke the GC to limit the options of Western nations in defending themselves, then the Western nations need to prosecute the enemies we face for violating them as well. If the British feel their invocation in this case would serve no purpose, then why abide by the GC at all?
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6049
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Postby piqaboo » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:23 pm

haggis wrote:The coroner's finding and the film of the execution does bring up an interesting question. Will Britain charge Saddam Hussein and the army officers in custody with war crimes? Saddam likely will not survive the trials he already faces with the Iraqis, but the British should consider formal charges against Saddam and his henchmen for this crime. If people want to invoke the GC to limit the options of Western nations in defending themselves, then the Western nations need to prosecute the enemies we face for violating them as well. If the British feel their invocation in this case would serve no purpose, then why abide by the GC at all?


Yes, I think they should bring charges.

Re BigJon's question" What we should do with them today? Hold them, question them. Allow them to feel quite isolated. Physical pain however induces lying. So why waste the moral high ground to get bad data in return?
Where? What choices are you offering? Generally POWs are kept securely back from the front lines, but not all that far back, because its expensive to transport people. We dont exactly have a base in the mid-East to use as a holding zone. I'd need a bit more expert info to suggest which country might let us set up a holding camp.

Sometimes ya gotta do the right thing (treat people the right way) because its the right thing. Because "whats in it for you" is the way you regard yourself 10 years down the road, and nothing more.
Altoid - curiously strong.
piqaboo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 7135
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Paradise (So. Cal.)

Postby piqaboo » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:24 pm

PS - I find it hilariously funny that Saddam is being held up as an example of one who didnt honor an agreement.... didnt we just throw him out of office, citing exactly that? So what makes him an exemplar of how the rest of the world behaves?


Child of mine, you shouldnt worry about the 10 commandments, because Cain didnt follow them either.......
Altoid - curiously strong.
piqaboo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 7135
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Paradise (So. Cal.)

Postby Shapley » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:55 pm

We dont exactly have a base in the mid-East to use as a holding zone. I'd need a bit more expert info to suggest which country might let us set up a holding camp.


Actually, a small number of nations let us do that, but they didn't want it advertised, so we kept them a secret. That is up to the point that somebody 'leaked' their existence to the press, who published it for the whole world to see, and now they are all empty. It seems some people thought we shouldn't have 'secret torture camps' set up in other countries, never mind that there was no evidence of torture at these camps, it was enough to call them that in order to disgrace this President.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby OperaTenor » Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:08 pm

And let's not forget about the Canadian who was taken, rendered to Syria, tortued on our behalf, and subsequently released without ever having been charged.

Maher Arar
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby BigJon » Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:25 pm

You do realize that the "traditional" military response to capturing enemy agents without uniform is summary execution?

How can we forget Maher Arar when he is brought up in every discussion here on torture? How do we know that his beatings and torture were requested or expected by US officials?
Even a blind nut finds a squirrel once in a while. – Me! Feb 9, 2001
BigJon
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1155
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Postby Shapley » Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:33 am

OT,

Re: Maher Arar,

You're confusing two issues. The issue at hand is military detainees, not INS deportations. Arar was a 'suspicious person' because of his connections to Abdullah Almalki. I would assume that his rental lease, signed by Almalki was obtained from the Candadian government, and thus he was considered a 'suspicious person' there, as well. This would go far to explain why he wasn't merely deported to Canada, and the intent was to return him to Syria, where he retained dual citizenship with Canada. Why he was deported to Jordan I do not know, I would expect that Jordan's willingness to accept him indicates that they had some interest in him as well. Most countries are not in the business of importing non-citizens to fill their prisons.

He was visited by representatives from the Canadian Consulate several times during his detention in Jordan, but there is no indication that they were in a hurry to effect his release. I would say that he was a victim of circumstances, his connection to Almalki, however slight that connection may have been, made him a person of interest in international circles. You are judged by the friends you keep, right or wrong.

Regardless, this is not a case of a 'secret prison' for military detainees. The INS deported a non-citizen to country that had expressed an interest in detaining him - I assume that they expressed to the INS their reasons for accepting him, although I'm not privy to that information. Nor, apparently, is Mr. Arar. Border security is an entirely different discussion than this one, and one for which we have another thread already running.

V/R
Shapley
Last edited by Shapley on Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby Haggis@wk » Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:59 am

Patterico has posted the second installment of his interview with an Army nurse who spent a great deal of time with the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. It is very interesting stuff. Here are a couple of excerpts, but it's all worth reading:

”I asked him that very question: what are the detainees like? Stashiu said:
For many of them, think Ted Bundy. Educated, charming, and without conscience for those they consider infidels. Some are truly ill and were taken advantage of because of it.”


An army of Ted Bundys--rather a chilling thought. I also found this exchange interesting:

”Are there any of them who are reasonable enough that Stashiu would feel safe if we were to let them go free?

I don’t know that anyone is beyond reason, but I also don’t know more than a couple who I think might be ok to release. “Might” being the operative word there, I wouldn’t give the go-ahead on my own for any of them. There I are couple I could understand and would not go out of my way to protest their release. I can tell you that if I ever saw a detainee face-to-face here in the States, I would immediately assume that I was targeted and do my best to kill them without further warning. If I turned out to be wrong about their intent, I could live with that.”


Suffice it to say that this guy doesn't buy the claim that many detainees are innocents who were somehow "scooped up" in East Asia.

One question Patterico was very interested in is whether the detainees think they are going to win the war. The Army nurse said that in his opinion, most of the detainees do sincerely think that their side will win. The idea that Islam is destined to dominate the world is fundamental to their religious training. The anti-war movement in the U.S. is one of several signs of our weakness:

”Their leaders consistently stress that jihad is working and our culture is a hollow shell. They point to Vietnam, Somalia, 9/11, Madrid (both the bombings and the elections immediately following), and the anti-war propagandists here in the United States. . . . The Jihadists are constantly told that America is weak-willed and will turn and run if they can be inflicted with enough damage and peace can be delayed long enough.”


Chilling
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6049
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Postby piqaboo » Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:31 am

And here Bush is having a hard time finding homes for these guys.....
He's finding out that a knife cuts both ways.

Not that the nurse has anything invested in being right, nor is there any concievable reason that a 'detainee' might grasp all the more fervently to the hope of eventual victory.
(I'm not saying the nurse is wrong. I cant, not been there. Still, cant fail to consider the way people work...)

Haggis, if ..... the Czech Republic scooped you up, locked you up & told you that you were scum, the US was scum and that the US would lose...
wouldnt you hold all the more fervently to your faith in your chosen country, and spit back counter propaganda at your jailers?
Or would you sit back, think for a while, and say "y'know, you might have a point there?". (Whhoops, about choked myself trying to picture that last scenario.....breathe breathe breathe....)

So, these guys are either innocents that the govt never bothered to charge and is now trying to 'place' without much success (apparently the US govt is sufficiently convinced of their innocence that they want the Britixh to take them in), or they are not and our military is incapable of figuring that out.

This doesnt paint a pretty picture of competence in any direction.
Altoid - curiously strong.
piqaboo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 7135
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Paradise (So. Cal.)

Postby BigJon » Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:01 pm

edit. Sorry Piq, I missed your earlier reply to my question. I'm not harping, I'm generally unable to come up with a better solution. I think the current arrangement is probably the best that can be done given the rules (small r) of the game as they are currently laid out.
Last edited by BigJon on Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Even a blind nut finds a squirrel once in a while. – Me! Feb 9, 2001
BigJon
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1155
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Postby OperaTenor » Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:42 am

Piq, silly you for trying to apply the Atticus principle here!
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Nicole Marie » Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:42 am

How about this one....

"The U.S. military in Iraq has imprisoned an Associated Press photographer for five months, accusing him of being a security threat but never filing charges or permitting a public hearing."

http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0 ... olitics_14
H.R.H. Nicole Marie
Eve was Framed
Nicole Marie
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Hartford CT

Postby Shapley » Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:49 am

Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby Shapley » Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:57 am

Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby Nicole Marie » Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:22 am

Thanks for backing up my point Shap! At least from the CBS report. I don't count bloggers in general.
H.R.H. Nicole Marie
Eve was Framed
Nicole Marie
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Hartford CT

Postby Shapley » Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:38 am

I'm not a big fan of blogs, either, but when I Googled 'Bilal Hussein' that was about 95% of the hits. I had to scroll through a few pages to find the CBS News link, and it cites Michelle Malkin for some of it's info. Two Blogs, Michelle's and Sir Humphrey's, are the major source of info on Hussein.

Apparently there are serious concerns about Hussein's relationship with the insurgents. In war time, it is not unusual to deny prisoners access to usual legal channels. In addition, Hussein's press credentials make him a special case if he is allied with the insurgency. The term 'spy' comes to mind, although I'm not sure if that is the exact classification he would fall under.

Based on the data, it would seem that Hussein was a local who began submitting photos to the AP in 2004. The fact that AP put him on the payroll does not change his status if he turns out to be just another insurgent who happened to own a camera. The indications are that he was a propogandist for the insurgency, and that will have to be hashed out by the military or by the Iraqi government if he is turned over to them. Right now, he is a POW.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

PreviousNext

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]

cron