Obama & Torture

[carolaa]

Quote:

GW said otherwise and it's hard to admit their man may have lied

I am not sure what it is about you that keeps calling Bush a liar. Why would one do that. During his presidency you did the same thing. That was one thing. But man ... the guy is out of office. Have some respect. It is not a lie to say that the US does not have policies that torture. Yet, there may be torture. And of course that depends upon who definition you use.

But please ... let the man retire in peace.

I'm not going to play games about torture definition. There are plenty of eye witnesses, plus the Red Cross, to say there was torture. And if there was torture, then GW, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and others knew about it and authorized it. If he did not lie, then he certainly twisted the truth until it was unrecognizable.

Didn't we just extradite yet another former Nazi guard recently? People who do those things do not retire in peace. They retire in fear that the people they have wronged will come back to punish them someday. There is no statute of limitations on war crimes. GW called it a war, so it's a war crime. It has little to do with respect and much to do with accountability.

[Woody]

Of course that is your view. I have seen plenty of lies from this current administation. Clear. Obvious lies. But I have chosen not to call our president a liar out of respect for his office and in part for the distain of hearing the cries from the left about Bush being a liar and a murderer.

Obviously I could also call Obama a murderer. He has increased the troop levels in Afghanistan. That war is now clearly his. He has defined it to his terms.

However ... you will not hear me call him a murderer.

[Neil D]

"out of respect for the office".....????????

Anyone want to vote as to whether Redwood has called/infered Obama as a liar in any/all of his posts?

__yes __No

Anyone want to vote as to whether Redwood has called/infered Obama as a murderer in any/all of his posts?

__yes __No

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

My understanding is that the Red Cross is the recognized body that tells whether torture has been committed...

Terrorist camps train their terrorists to lie to the International Red Cross in order to turn public sentiment against their captors. The American Red Cross does a much better job of determining if torture has taken place than the International Red Cross does.

[Dr. Shane]

Although I oppose torture, I am not convinced that it hasn't saved lives.

The Geneva Convention created rules of war which many nations signed onto. Those rules established rules for treating prisoners of war (POW). Those rules stated that a POW only had to provide his name, rank and serial number when captured. If that is the case, there is no reason to torture a POW to get more information out of him. If both countries have signed on to the treaty and are abiding by it, POWs will not be used as a source of intelligence.

Now we are in a war against terrorists. The terrorists have not signed onto the Geneva Conventions. They not only go after our military but our civilians. When they capture a POW they chop his head off and send it to their favorite TV networks. They burn their bodies and hang them from bridges. They pull off finger nails with pliers. Drill into teeth without anesthesia. They cur out tongues with razor blades. They really don't have a lot of use for the Geneva Convention.

So before we even get to the issue of terrorism we need to decide whether or not POWs should be a source of intelligence. If we know the terrorists are planning another attack and it is quite likely that some that we have in our prisons could give us details, do we try to get them to talk or not consider that an option?

[Bravus]

Two separate issues there:

1. 'They torture'. Are our actions determined by their actions? Or by what is right?

2. Information. Read up. You will find that information gained by torture is useless, because a torture victim will tell a torturer anything. If you can show me *one* instance in which information obtained by torture has averted a terrorist attack, I might have to reconsider this point. But as far as I understand *everyone* in military and intelligence services and is in a position to know knows that torture is useless for gaining information. Therefore the whole rationale for using it that is being advanced here is fatally flawed.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Are our actions determined by their actions?

That is what the Geneva Convention is all about. We agree to do this if you agree too.

Quote:

You will find that information gained by torture is useless

That jumps past the first issue. If we should only ask his name, rank and serial number than torture is a non-issue.

Of course the government has kept the information they receive from terrorist suspects confidential so no one can point to any specific instance where it has prevented a specific threat. However we don't need to in order to grasp its ability to prevent terrorist attacks. Police use interrogation to solve crimes. Interrogation has not only solved many crimes but prevented many as well. Torture is nothing more than ramped up interrogation. In fact, at times, the police have been guilty of using torture during interrogation.

We can't simply write the issue off by saying 'torture is useless'. If that was true we would have no conflict. We would not be trying to weigh the evil of torture against the evil of terrorism.

[Bravus]

Yes we can. That's the point. Torture *is* useless for gathering information. So we are not weighing anything at all.

As I said, read up:

http://harpers.org/archive/2009/03/hbc-90004644

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/torture.aspx

http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/torture-does-not-get-good-information/

http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/000847.html

Or watch up:

http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/11/TortureQandA.htm

[Dr. Shane]

If it were that simple there would be no debate. The fact that there is a debate is itself proof that it is not that simple.

Interrogation works. Countless crimes have been solved and prevented because of it. Scare tactics are routinely used during police interrogation. Psychological torture is nothing more than ramped up scare tactics.

I am not arguing in favor of torture. I am simple stating the obvious. I am not convinced that we should even be interrogating this captured terrorists. If we are going to apply the rules of the Geneva Convention to them then interrogation is out. We ask them their name, rank and serial number and nothing else. If we say the Geneva Convention doesn't apply than the door is open to a wide world of possibilities and we need to decide where to draw the line.

[Bravus]

Quote:

If it were that simple there would be no debate. The fact that there is a debate is itself proof that it is not that simple.

Nope. There is a debate because it is *plausible* that it works, but not *true* that it works. There was a debate about the earth being at the centre of the solar system, but that doesn't make it true.

[Dr. Shane]

We have centuries of evidence confirming the positive results of interrogation. Of course not everything every prisoner is going to say is going to be useful. However when the same information is being confessed by various prisoners it is normally reliable. These are the same tactics police use in crime investigation. It works and the world is a better place because of it (referring to crime investigation).

I think one really has to want to believe that torture is useless in order to be convinced of that. If there was credible evidence of it not only wouldn't the US not be doing it but all the radical regimes and organized criminal elements wouldn't be doing it either. The reason people do this is because it works. Of course it doesn't work 100% of the time but it works enough that it is a tactic that has been used for centuries.

However getting back to the issue, we must ask ourselves if we even have the right to interrogate terrorist suspects.

[Taylor]

Yes, I am sure that torture does produce answers at times and interrogation has provided useful information. I agree, Shane. My problem is that I believe that torture to be fundamentally wrong no matter the results. To me two wrongs (their crime, and us torturing them) don't make a right.

Also I must say I don't believe the USA has policies to inflict torture routinely, but I do think it has happened in isolated cases and that is unfortunate.

[Dr. Shane]

I am by no means arguing that we should torture. In fact, I am questioning if we should even be interrogating. That question is, do we want to treat terrorist suspects as we would like them to treat our captured soldiers and civilians? We have a few options. We can treat them as we would POWs (name, rank, serial number) or treat them as the police are allowed to treat criminal suspects, torture them or treat them somewhere between torture and criminal suspects. I don't have the answers but I think I have a grasp of the issue.

[Woody]

"out of respect for the office".....????????

Anyone want to vote as to whether Redwood has called/infered Obama as a liar in any/all of his posts?

__yes __No

Anyone want to vote as to whether Redwood has called/infered Obama as a murderer in any/all of his posts?

__yes __No

Sorry. Never called him a liar or a murderer. That's one line I don't cross. Rather than just accuse me falsely and blowin a lot of hot air .... How about just quoting me with "any or all" of those quotes.

[Woody]

The fact is that our interrogating has saved thousands of lives because we have uncovered terrorists plots and that is the reason no attacks have happened since 9-11.

Our government does not torture so that question is mute. But the use of caterpillars has saved thousands. Hope you get my point.

I think the definition of 'torture' is an important one that should not be dismissed. I am opposed to 'torture'. But, what our government does is not 'torture'.

If letting one caterpillar in a cell can saved thousands of lives ... then I think Jesus would be in support of it. A little discomfort of one person to save thousands is an obvious solution. A life is just too valuable to be dismissed.

[Taylor]

Waterboarding and other things (that are way more serious than catapillars) is torture. It isn't policy but it did happen.

[Taylor]

I am by no means arguing that we should torture. In fact, I am questioning if we should even be interrogating. That question is, do we want to treat terrorist suspects as we would like them to treat our captured soldiers and civilians? We have a few options. We can treat them as we would POWs (name, rank, serial number) or treat them as the police are allowed to treat criminal suspects, torture them or treat them somewhere between torture and criminal suspects. I don't have the answers but I think I have a grasp of the issue.

I know you don't agree with torturing. I think it is ok to ask questions, so long as we are not torturing.

(And yes I think you have a grasp of the issue. IF you felt I was saying you didn't I am truely sorry..didn't mean to come across as thinking that because I didn't think that. I appreciate your input here.)

[carolaa]

when the same information is being confessed by various prisoners it is normally reliable.

And that's exactly what happened with the ICRC investigation. They interviewed prisoners separately, who had not had contact with each other, and the same things kept coming out.

[carolaa]

at times, the police have been guilty of using torture during interrogation.

and such coerced confessions are not admissible in court because they are considered not to be reliable

[carolaa]

I have chosen not to call our president a liar out of respect for his office and in part for the distain of hearing the cries from the left about Bush being a liar and a murderer.

Obviously I could also call Obama a murderer. He has increased the troop levels in Afghanistan. That war is now clearly his. He has defined it to his terms.

However ... you will not hear me call him a murderer.

Perhaps you might want to go back and count the actual times I have used the word "liar" in reference to GW. I believe it has been quite rare. I have to wonder if you haven't brought it up more often than I have actually done it.

At any rate, I don't see a big difference between saying someone lied (as you just did above and I have done several times) and calling them a liar. To me, it's the same thing, no difference at all. So I won't have my feelings hurt or get insulted or defensive if you call Obama a liar and/or a murderer. I don't put you on some pedestal because you choose to use certain words over others. It sounds like the word game is a much bigger deal to you than it is to me.

[Bravus]

I have a close friend who is in one of the intelligence organisations in the US. He has clearly stated that what works in interrogation is spending a lot of time with a prisoner and forming a relationship. He has to do this with some truly evil and horrible people, and it's hard on him, but that's what is known in the intelligence committee to work.

Shane, people use it because it works. But not for obtaining information. It works for terrorising a population, which is why dictators use it. Seeing the term is so very popular in the US these days, you could even call it a form of terrorism.

[there buster]

Quote:

and such coerced confessions are not admissible in court because they are considered not to be reliable

reliability is not the issue in a court of law. Constitutionality is.

constitutionality is not an issue in a combat zone. Reliability is.

[there buster]

Quote:

I don't see a big difference between saying someone lied (as you just did above and I have done several times) and calling them a liar. To me, it's the same thing, no difference at all.

So, when God says we should hate the sin, and love the sinner, it's essentially meaningless, since "he lied" (he committed a sin) and "he is a liar" (he is a sinner) is "the same thing, no difference at all."

Someone should explain that to God.

[there buster]

Quote:

Seeing the term is so very popular in the US these days, you could even call it a form of terrorism.

Slandering an individual is a terrible thing. Apparently, slandering a whole nation is not.

[Bravus]

It's slander to say that the term 'terrorism' is very popular in the US these days? Wow.