Do you or do you not?
 

Do you or do you not condemn unconditionally and absolutely the Abu Gharib Prison tortures/murders/rape?

Do you or do you not condemn unconditionally and absolutely the beheading of Nick Berg?

I condemn unconditionally, absolutely, without any reservation both vile acts.

Re: Do you or do you not?
 

What the soldiers did in that prison was idiotic. I hope they get locked up for a long time.

The beheading of Mr. Berg was, however, a far worse crime (someone died).

The way the arab media has reportedly treated both events is interesting. To them, these things were just side notes, they're still more interested in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The way some propagandists in Iraq have been successful getting their message accross in spite of people on TV hacking someone's neck off while singing "God is great" proves one thing to me -- we can never win the PR battle with some folks over there. We could give someone money, food, a safe place to live, etc.. the moment we turn our collective backs, we'd find a knife there.

Re: Re: Do you or do you not?
 

Not really concerned about the Palestianin-israeli or the arab media. Just wanted to know if you condemn unconditionally and absolutely both events.

Yes, both.

All of the above are atrocities.

I do condem them both

weeeeeeeeeeeeelllllllllll-It's like this-
Both were wrong, no question. But like all good Catholics believe, some of us go to Purgatory and others will go straight to Hell.

Re: Do you or do you not?
 

Yes

Re: Do you or do you not?
 

Ditto

Re: Do you or do you not?
 

What he said! All that were involved need their asses kicked! :mad:

While it sounds Strange, is what happened to the Iraquis any different than what has been done for over the many years?

Is it imoral, barbaric, yes! Does it give these people the right to be-head a man? MO!

So does that give the Intelligence community the permission to do it?

Very much decided here on this point? Do We want people killed for stupid things?

It is totally amazing, Saddam Killed more people because they did not beleive in him. There are still mass graves being found and is heart rentching for The Iraqui people.

Not when the Infandels do something, we are the White Ghosts of destruction.

We are as Americans who battle in cemetaries and fire on Mosques when being fired on, we are wrong!?

Well, We infandels are Wrong!

If push comes to shove kill them.

Do I beleive in retrobution, yes.

Are We Right, I do not know.

Is it right to set little sneak road bombs or have Children or women wear bombs!???

Thank god I never had to do this. I just rode in a Police Car for 7 years it was fun until the shit hit the fan!:(

Just explain very carefully, good people leave a city! !!!!

I will not say anymore.:confused:

Re: Re: Re: Do you or do you not?
 

Well, in that case, no. I don't condemn what we did to Iraqi prisoners. If that is indeed what military intelligence and CIA types think needs to be done in order to extract information, fine, I'm on board.

The dumb-f***s with cameras should be locked up for a long time though. Idiots.

We're in a war. One where information saves lives. You aren't going to get that information by being all nicey-nice. The folks we capture are generally folks that want us dead. So yes, making life a little uncomfortable for them is not a big deal in my mind.

While they are being humiliated, etc., their comrades are beheading our civilians and killing our soldiers.

Once they've crossed that line, in my opinion, they've thrown away any right to fairness, prosperity, or comort that they had previously enjoyed. Screw 'em.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you or do you not?
 

So do we condemn them all for the actions of a few? We don't condemn the US military for the actions of a few of its personnel so why should we condemn all Iraqis for the actions of some fanatic terrorists (who may or may not even be Iraqi).

PS> There are allegations of actions greater than humiliation... some of which include rape and murder.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you or do you not?
 

The folks in these particular prisons are in there because they were caught trying to kill US soldiers.

These aren't shoplifters or people picked up for possession of a little weed.

These are enemies that want our men and women dead.

You're more quick to defend these Iraqi killers than our own soldiers. I never heard you come out this strong when they were dragging our dead through the streets and putting their bodies on display on bridges. Anything that happened to them in there, in my mind, they deserved far worse.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you or do you not?
 

I'm interested in how you came to that conclusion when, according to the US Major General who did the original investigation, 70 percent plus of those arrested, jailed and held in US controlled Iraqi prisons were there for no legal reason as I recall. In other words, nothing illegal was found in further investigation.

Did I miss something in that stat?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you or do you not?
 

While that stat is most likely accurate, I'd be pretty surprised if we were interrogating folks who had no real way of knowing anything.

I'm talking out my ass on that one, but it would seem reasonable.

Sometimes the US military isn't always completely reasonable.

Still, the NY Times did that big article decrying some of the techniques that were used to interrogate individuals that helped plan 9/11. Yep, we made life pretty miserable for them.

They killed 3000 people.

They have a long way to go before there's any kind of justice -- is justice even possible for these people?

Again, where was the outrage when US soldiers were tortured, killed and had their mutilated bodies put on display?

I don't understand the corelation there, KT. But it's late, I'll take another look tomorrow and see if it makes more sense to me.

Sorry.

Local Detroit News channel 4 (NBC affiliate) just reported on their 11:00 pm news tonight that a man who lives in the US legally was arrested while visiting family in Iraq and abused in numerous ways (including being sodomized with a stick). He ended up released and is back at home in Dearborn, MI.

They haven't posted the story on the net yet, once they do, I will edit to add a link to the story.

If we believe in due process, then we have to believe in it all the time.

Dee

I will use this time to shoot my mouth off about a subject I know nothing, as is my right and duty as an American. Just Kidding. I'm not going to say anything stupid. Vote Federalist.

ktsnake-I'm talking out my ass on that one, but it would seem reasonable.

You're in pretty good company! ;) :D

I am somehow out of the loop..
 

What is the ???

I guess my dissertation really has started ruling my life...
Silver

I don't do anything unconditionally. I don't condemn anything unconditionally so that in the future someone can come and say oh but hey torture is torture. In the Filipinies, torture was used over 40 days to secure information on an attack on the pope. Throughout the world, there are many ticking bomb situations where it is necessary to extract information to save many lives. So yes, I emphatically support torture in that context.

However, I do not support torture for the sake of torture and believe that there should be steps taken to prevent that. I do not know the full case of Abu Gharib and neither do most of you. You do not know what happened beyond those pictures, you do not know what crimes (if any) the prisoners had committed, or anything further. I believe in Dershowitz's idea that there should be separations and balances built in where acts like this would be prevented but stress can be applied to prisoners to extract information and save lives.

And there is no comparison between Abu Gharib or Berg's case. None. One wasn't the result of the other to begin with. Additionally, Berg not only is dead but died a brutal death. By posting both in the same post you have created an idea of "one and the same". That was foolish and there was absolutely no reason for it.

-Rudey

So, do you or do you not condemn the torture in Abu Gharib?

This isn't about the torture of Abu Gharib, it is about the decimation of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis by Hussein, the gassing and the murder by Hussein, and about the Hussein-supporting terrorists who mutilate American bodies.

-Rudey
--I can play this game better than you

Do you or do you not condemn the Abu Gharib tortures? It is a simple question. I did not ask about Hussein. I ask two specific questions. You answered the second one, which you condemn the Berg's murder. But you did not answer the first question.

So to reiterate, do you or do you not condemn the Abu Gharib tortures?

Actually it does have to do with the question. I approve of torture and stress to save lives. That picture shows a man who might have been saved had an informant talked. Cases of stress and torture are widely documented as having prior success (see my post about the pope). So what did you not notice about that?

As for Abu Gharib, I and nobody else knows everything that has happened yet nor the circumstances behind any of it. Since I support torture in some cases, and since I don't know the details of Abu Gharib, I cannot answer your question. That is the best answer.

As for the other question you tried to link up to Abu Gharib, it was clearly designed to have people create that artificial link.

-Rudey

Salon.com (liberal, yes, but it raises some interesting points) had a recent interview with a former CIA agent who worked there until 1998 and said that anyone caught using torture as a device to get information would have been immediately dismissed while he was working there. Of course he can't say for certain, but he speculated that torture only became acceptable after 9/11.

I'm wondering why an action that the CIA shied away from for years would suddenly become acceptable?

After all, experience has shown that torture isn't an effective information-getting device because those being tortured will tell you what you want to hear rather than the truth, just so that their suffering will end. And when you take into account that statistic that said 70 percent of those in that jail could easily have no knowledge of what you want to know -- well, you'd be getting a lot of irrelevant information and false leads.

I don't support torture as a technique the US should be using, it's that simple.

And Tom, Iraqis didn't kill Nick Berg. To the best of my recollection, it was a Jordanian that did.

Anyway, I agree with most of the people in this thread when I say that I don't find either action acceptable.

A) Experience has shown that torture is an effective information-getting device since one case alone I've cited twice.

B) What statistic??

C) Even if 70% of those in jail have no knowledge, stress isn't applied to everyone and anyone. And were it applied to 100, where 50 people might know, and one person tells you that there is a suicide murderer attacking a building filled with people, then maybe 300+ people might live.

-Rudey

Kind of off topic, but a comment from an ordinary American today said you could get better intelligence from a weary, humiliated, psychologically unsettled terrorist than you could from a satiated, well rested terrorist.

Hmmmm-who da thunk it!:rolleyes:

Then here's a simple answer for you, if you want to wax sophist for a moment:

NO.

I don't unilaterally condemn it.


























Sorry, but in a wartime environment, the rules shift. History has proven time and again that he who breaks the rules takes a decisive advantage - so why restrict ourselves to some sort of generation-A morality, when we're in battle with an enemy who clearly doesn't give a damn?

Now - this obviously ignores the larger questions of the validity of war, as well as the intelligence of using our supposed moral highground as a selling point to Iraqis . . . but those are separate issues.

I'm certainly no expert on torture, but every "expert" I've heard interviewed or read about recently says that physical torture is a very inefficient method of garnering information.

And the 70% "statistic" came from Army Major General Taguba who wrote the initial US Army report on abuses in the Iraqi prisons. He supposedly is an expert.

Quite true... physical torture itself is not effective in gathering any sort of detailed information and is moderately effective in gathering immediate tactical information (well thats always what the SSF lecture was). The problem is that under physical duress the subject will tailor their responses to suit what they percieve as your desired answer.. ie. they tell you what you want to hear.
More effective methods inculde the usual array of psychological techniques: fear of torture, sensory deprevation, sexual/social humiliation, and sleep deprevation. The added mental anguish inflicted by these techniques serves to keep the subject off balance and unable to consentrate effectively, making it harder to stick to a story over repeated interogation sessions.

DeltAlum, donkey rides are often inefficient, but sometimes they have to be used. What might be inefficient in general, might be very efficient in that specific situation. I did not say torture everyone and anyone, but every expert from intelligence to police teams will tell you that stress is used.

If I have a bomb going off in 30 minutes and I have the terrorist who planned it in my hands and he isn't talking, what do I do? I've offered him the carrot, and now it's time to use the stick.

-Rudey

What happened to water purification?

Clearly there must be some means of extracting needed information. Someone has to set the boundries, though, as to where interogation ends and torture begins. And someone has to decide how far we are willing to go, considering our national moral standards and the rules of warfare and international law.

Thankfully, that someone isn't me.

If we cross that line somewhere, we have to be ready to accept the fact that we're not always the good guys -- and/or be ready to accept the consequences of our action(s).

A lot of people have decided we've crossed the line. So now it apparantely comes to who decided it was OK to do that, and what to do to/with those who were involved.

This isn't the first time it has happened, and, sadly, probably won't be the last. But, for the most part, I think we try to stay on the high side of the equation. As we should.

I believe we are good guys and that mistakes do happen. And yes I also believe that there should be checks and balances. Dershowitz's recommendation was to have psychologists independent of the intelligence and military reporting on what they see and if any very unacceptable boundaries are crossed. His other recommendation might be to have someone very senior, possibly a very high-level person (ie president or vp) give permission for each specific incident.

Beating a man who is in prison and knows nothing (when you know he knows nothing) is unacceptable. Torture for torture's sake is unacceptable. Torture for pleasure is unacceptable. The fine details are things that I do not and can not even begin to detail so I will stick to large general statements like that. In the case of Abu Gharib full details have not been released over who was "tortured", what treatment they received, the intent, etc.

Again, you can't just make these wide generalities about what is right and wrong. What is right in one situation might not be in another. You glossed over my human time bomb example only because, I assume, you would have difficult answering it.

-Rudey
--And my desalination comment wouldn't be understood by many people so I made a more common point of reference

No, actually, I don't remember reading anything about a human time bomb. Guess it didn't make an impression.

ETA that I don't recall setting an generalities. I believe I said that someone (not me) had to make a judgement. I also think I said that we are on the high side of the equation -- and generally the good guys.

But we're not perfect.

If you have a man who set up a bomb and won't tell you where it is and you've tried everything including incentive and stress, what do you do?

-Rudey

Sorry, I think I was editing my last while you were posting this.

To answer your question, if lives are involved, I suppose you do whatever is necessary. But again, that's not for me to decide in a forum like this. Which is good.

However, I don't think that there is much of a corelation to one person and a bomb and hundreds of people -- most (if you believe the aformentioned Generals report) of whom know little or nothing important.

Finally, "experts" who discount torture as a valid interrogation technique also say that physical violence also doesn't generally do anything except make the victim say whatever it is you want him to say -- not necessarily the truth.

These same exoerts say that it has worked in the past, including one situation where torture was applied over 40 days to save the pope from being bombed. It may not be right for every situation but it might be for some.

-Rudey

The Pope's drinking habits aren't my problem. Ok, that's a really bad joke.

I will admit that there are exceptions to every rule and many situations. The problem under debate here, though, as I understand it is whether we personally condone the type of treatment allegedly given to a large number of people who probably didn't have any information to give.

My answer remains that I don't condone it in this case.