From BBC:


All US military detainees, including those at Guantanamo Bay, are to be treated in line with the minimum standards of the Geneva Conventions.
The White House announced the shift in policy almost two weeks after the US Supreme Court ruled that the conventions applied to detainees.
President Bush had long fought the idea that US detainees were prisoners of war entitled to Geneva Convention rights.



Okay. It's a start I guess.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5169600.stm


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif It is not really a reversal of policy - humane treatment has always been the standard http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif


Tony Snow,
White House spokesman


What exactly does he mean by "not really"?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif It is not really a reversal of policy - humane treatment has always been the standard http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif

What exactly does he mean by "not really"?


Waterboarding, interrogations of hooded prisoners with snarling dogs, sleep deprivation that lasts for months, solitary confinement for periods of up to a year, and threats of transferring prisoners to countries that practice torture are "really humane". Get with the program.

Humane treatment has always been the american standard.

Its just that the Bush administration claims that the american standard doesn't apply to it.

Now they're saying that they will treat the prisoners we know they are holding humanely.

In other words, when they get someone they feel they need to torture for information, they just won't tell you they've been captured or where they're being held, while they are torturing them in a foreign gulag.

So, the country is no less safe now than before. If they catch a high level terrorist, they'll torture the hell out of him, don't worry. Just ask Chemical Ali, or whatever his name is. Anyone know where he is being held? Guess what, it ain't Guantanimo.

He's got electrical currents running through the portion of his testicles that dogs haven't eaten off, right now as we speak.

And to the conservatives who think liberal/progressives are weak on the war on terror, please note that I have no problem with twisting his nipples with needle nose plyers (pliers?) until he confesses.

"Do onto others" vs. "He who has the gold makes the rules".
Which Golden Rule do you prefer?

I understand the argument for allowing torture in certain cases. I also understand the argument for an absolute prohibition. What I don't accept is the idea that it's ok for us to say we don't do it, to say it's illegal... then with a nod and a wink do it anyway.

If we're going to do it, own it. Make it part of the rule of law. If we can finely slice something like killing another human being for example into a dozen varieties justified or illegal all with different penalties or no penalty at all why can't we face up to torture and decide we're either going to accept it or not and have some standards and accountability to it?

Is torture so abhorrent that we could never face the idea of doing it "officially" under any circumstances? We can have a national discussion and laws allowing us to strap a guy to a chair and fry him but poking him with a sharp stick for information is too uncomfortable to face?

Either way, the status quo of hypocrisy just makes us pussies. The government--and by extension all of us whom it represents--needs to pick a position and be held accountable to it.

Koran (9:11) - For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace.


Guess the Koran got it right. Note the passage number.

There's a notion that to fight these people we have to get down and be nearly as dirty and ruthless as they. America has been percieved as soft and weak stomached for a while. Is it a good idea to be evil bad assed motherfuckers for a change, especiaally against an enemy with very little regard for human life?

Listen.

The debate isn't that terribly difficult.

Its just not a black and white thing. Its all about grey.

There are the 1% folks - targets of military importance, high ranking officials, who may have information about a future attack, like a Chemical Ali. They are the exception. These are the guys you capture, send to foreign gulags, and torture for information until your little heart's content. And these are the guys that we ARE torturing in foreign gulags AS WE SPEAK. I have no problem with that, btw.

Then, on the other hand, there are the other 99% - the masses of yahoos at places like Guantanimo and Abu Graib, most of whom are just dumb teenagers brainwashed into a radical hate for America that caused them to pick up a rifle and shoot at american troops.

These are simply militant hotheads, with no military value, no connection to Bin Laden, nothing to gain from torturing, no valuable information, etc. They are, for lack of a better term, FOOTSOLDIERS. Granted, they are not soldiers of a recognized army. I understand that. But they are intellectually worthless footsoldiers, much like the typical marine if captured.

They don't know secret military strategy. They are footsoldiers.

And that appears to be the vast majority of the people we are holding at Guantanimo.

When we capture these footsoldiers on the battlefield, it is imperative that we treat them humanely, in order to expect our footsoldiers (marines, etc.) to be treated in the same fashion.

Sure, you can argue that they are terrorists who don't wear uniforms, and shouldn't be entitled to the same rules as a real military force, but the bottom line is WHY NOT?????

If all it does is make us look bad to the rest of the world, give them an excuse to mistreat OUR prisoners of war - - - and we get NOTHING valuable in return, like information, then what is the point?

We SHOULD treat low level footsoldiers we capture on the battlefield humanely, regardless of whether they are wearing uniforms, and we SHOULD treat high level terrorists with sensitive information INHUMANELY, if it can save lives.

I understand the argument for allowing torture in certain cases. I also understand the argument for an absolute prohibition. What I don't accept is the idea that it's ok for us to say we don't do it, to say it's illegal... then with a nod and a wink do it anyway.
This game I understand. AFAIK, what makes torture effective from an info extraction perspective is the terrorism aspect of it, the fear and threat that the potential for torture inspires. If you have some concrete limits on what you will or won't do, you're replacing fear with certainty. The last thing that folks torturing for info want is a clear and unambiguous line. You can get lots of good info from untrained people strapping electrodes to someone's genitals (or someone's loved one's genitals) and having nice little electric "zzzzzzt" sounds while they "calibrate the machine" and have them sitting their waiting in agony. But, the moment they say "fuck it, I'll be a mutilated eunuch or dead, but no fucking way will you get my secrets", then you're very unlikely to get the secrets. Once you put the actual shock to the system, the brain shuts down, starts rattling off dizzy crap as a defense mechanism. At that point (and over a longer period of time in general, especially once relevant parties realize you're alive but being held by the enemy), torture tends to turn into a propaganda exercise because your information tends to get less and less valuable. "Sign this letter confessing to war crimes or we will butterfly your penis and serve it to you for breakfast. See world, aren't we scary! Don't fuck with us!" Yippee.

Koran (9:11) - For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace.


Guess the Koran got it right. Note the passage number.

There's a notion that to fight these people we have to get down and be nearly as dirty and ruthless as they. America has been percieved as soft and weak stomached for a while. Is it a good idea to be evil bad assed motherfuckers for a change, especiaally against an enemy with very little regard for human life?

That's fucking creepy.

As for the Geneva Conventions, I smell an election year on the horizon. Haven't we dismissed those as old-fashioned since the war began?

Listen.

The debate isn't that terribly difficult.

Its just not a black and white thing. Its all about grey.

There are the 1% folks - targets of military importance, high ranking officials, who may have information about a future attack, like a Chemical Ali. They are the exception. These are the guys you capture, send to foreign gulags, and torture for information until your little heart's content. And these are the guys that we ARE torturing in foreign gulags AS WE SPEAK. I have no problem with that, btw.


I have a big problem with it. Like I said above, it makes hypocrisy the offical stance of the united states. I want the people responsible for it to have to come out of the closet on the record and say "We reserve the right to torture people at the sole discretion of the president of the united states."

Denial is how we ended up in this war in the first place. If torture is part of the "true cost" of the war on terror then itemize it on the bill and let the chips fall where they may. Personally I'd love to see a couple rounds of elections where all the candidates had to take a stand on it.

Listen.

The debate isn't that terribly difficult.

Its just not a black and white thing. Its all about grey.

There are the 1% folks - targets of military importance, high ranking officials, who may have information about a future attack, like a Chemical Ali. They are the exception. These are the guys you capture, send to foreign gulags, and torture for information until your little heart's content. And these are the guys that we ARE torturing in foreign gulags AS WE SPEAK. I have no problem with that, btw.

Then, on the other hand, there are the other 99% - the masses of yahoos at places like Guantanimo and Abu Graib, most of whom are just dumb teenagers brainwashed into a radical hate for America that caused them to pick up a rifle and shoot at american troops.

These are simply militant hotheads, with no military value, no connection to Bin Laden, nothing to gain from torturing, no valuable information, etc. They are, for lack of a better term, FOOTSOLDIERS. Granted, they are not soldiers of a recognized army. I understand that. But they are intellectually worthless footsoldiers, much like the typical marine if captured.

They don't know secret military strategy. They are footsoldiers.

And that appears to be the vast majority of the people we are holding at Guantanimo.

When we capture these footsoldiers on the battlefield, it is imperative that we treat them humanely, in order to expect our footsoldiers (marines, etc.) to be treated in the same fashion.

Sure, you can argue that they are terrorists who don't wear uniforms, and shouldn't be entitled to the same rules as a real military force, but the bottom line is WHY NOT?????

If all it does is make us look bad to the rest of the world, give them an excuse to mistreat OUR prisoners of war - - - and we get NOTHING valuable in return, like information, then what is the point?

We SHOULD treat low level footsoldiers we capture on the battlefield humanely, regardless of whether they are wearing uniforms, and we SHOULD treat high level terrorists with sensitive information INHUMANELY, if it can save lives.


C'mon Tay, don't try and bully people around here, you're not naive enough to think that wartime information is spilled from one source are you? It could be something simple, that by itself is worthless, but when you piece it together with a bunch of other "worthless" things, it makes something of value.

And, these guys aren't fighting for a country, therefore should have no protection under the Convention, IMO.

I have a big problem with it. Like I said above, it makes hypocrisy the offical stance of the united states. I want the people responsible for it to have to come out of the closet on the record and say "We reserve the right to torture people at the sole discretion of the president of the united states."
Once you cast that in stone, one way or another, you will make torture less effective for information gathering. The -fear- of torture is more productive in that regard than the act of torture itself. From what I've read, once you start doing the actual act of torture onto someone who hasn't been talking, you're most likely to cause their mind to repress the info you want to extract.


Denial is how we ended up in this war in the first place. If torture is part of the "true cost" of the war on terror then itemize it on the bill and let the chips fall where they may. Personally I'd love to see a couple rounds of elections where all the candidates had to take a stand on it.
I really want to see the presidential candidates shown videos of stuff known to be in use at Gitmo on live TV and asked "Is this torture?". See if they take a stand, hide behind a dictionary, or otherwise bob and weave.

Denial is how we ended up in this war in the first place. If torture is part of the "true cost" of the war on terror then itemize it on the bill and let the chips fall where they may. Personally I'd love to see a couple rounds of elections where all the candidates had to take a stand on it.
I really want to see the presidential candidates shown videos of stuff known to be in use at Gitmo on live TV and asked "Is this torture?". See if they take a stand, hide behind a dictionary, or otherwise bob and weave.


I can never quite understand why people even remotely give a shit if we torture guys who would be beheading our troops if they had their way. Flushing the Koran??? I bet our boys would give up an arm to know that the worst thing that was going to happen was somebody was going to desecrate the Bible.

C'mon Tay, don't try and bully people around here, you're not naive enough to think that wartime information is spilled from one source are you? It could be something simple, that by itself is worthless, but when you piece it together with a bunch of other "worthless" things, it makes something of value.
Let's not be naive to think that our uses of torture would be solely about information gathering, and would be limited to direct torture. Other popular applications include torturing a loved one of a person whose info you want, torture to extract a real or imagined confession for real or imagined sins, and of course, torture as a punishment for an offense.


And, these guys aren't fighting for a country, therefore should have no protection under the Convention, IMO.
Some are fighting to -be- a country -- the Palestinians, Kurds, etc. Some may be state-sponsored terrorists fighting for a country like Iran and not even know it. And can anyone tell me if Hezbollah is or isn't really Lebanon or if Taiwan is or isn't really China? The original Geneva Convention arose from a bloody battle which had a non-country (Sardinia / Piedmont/ Savoy) as key participants, and was signed by entities that weren't considered formal countries (e.g. Saxony)

I can never quite understand why people even remotely give a shit if we torture guys who would be beheading our troops if they had their way. Flushing the Koran??? I bet our boys would give up an arm to know that the worst thing that was going to happen was somebody was going to desecrate the Bible.
---------------------------------------------


^because they don't want to torture people, and refuse to be a part of your slippery slope.

Some are fighting to -be- a country -- the Palestinians, Kurds, etc. Some may be state-sponsored terrorists fighting for a country like Iran and not even know it. And can anyone tell me if Hezbollah is or isn't really Lebanon or if Taiwan is or isn't really China? The original Geneva Convention arose from a bloody battle which had a non-country (Sardinia/Piedmont/Savoy) as key participants.

Yes, but based on what the Convention is, 'fighting to become a country' does not mean that they will offer our POW's the same rights and courtesies.

Some are fighting to -be- a country -- the Palestinians, Kurds, etc. Some may be state-sponsored terrorists fighting for a country like Iran and not even know it. And can anyone tell me if Hezbollah is or isn't really Lebanon or if Taiwan is or isn't really China? The original Geneva Convention arose from a bloody battle which had a non-country (Sardinia/Piedmont/Savoy) as key participants.

Yes, but based on what the Convention is, 'fighting to become a country' does not mean that they will offer our POW's the same rights and courtesies.

Genius. There is no guaranty that they will offer our POW's the same rights and courtesies - - - however, if they see us torturing their fighters, it is guaranteed that they will torture and kill ours. Just look at the spikes in violence and rash of beheadings of hostages after and in retaliation for Abu Graib, among other incidents.

The best we can do to attempt to guaranty that our guys will be treated humanely when captured is to treat their guys humanely when captured.

C'mon, Scott. I thought you were a religious guy. Ever heard the sentiment "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?

I can never quite understand why people even remotely give a shit if we torture guys who would be beheading our troops if they had their way. Flushing the Koran??? I bet our boys would give up an arm to know that the worst thing that was going to happen was somebody was going to desecrate the Bible.
If we become our enemy, we lose. Torture is a fast path toward becoming our enemy. An eye for an eye, and everyone's blindly playing a millenia-old game that demonstrably goes nowhere fast.

Do you know that everyone in Gitmo would be beheading our troops if they had their way? If so, how? It's one thing if they were actively attacking our troops when captured, quite another when they're not. I don't think we should sit in judgement and extract punishment without due process. If you want to extract information, there's usually better ways than direct torture, even in time-critical cases.

Do you torture an innocent if it will save more lives? "I won't talk, but if you torture my 4-year old son maybe I would." That's how bad regimes torture for information and compel pliability. Should we? We've seen what some of our troops will do in Abu Ghraib. What stops that from happening again?

I can never quite understand why people even remotely give a shit if we torture guys who would be beheading our troops if they had their way. Flushing the Koran??? I bet our boys would give up an arm to know that the worst thing that was going to happen was somebody was going to desecrate the Bible.
If we become our enemy, we lose. Torture is a fast path toward becoming our enemy. An eye for an eye, and everyone's blindly playing a millenia-old game that demonstrably goes nowhere fast.

Do you know that everyone in Gitmo would be beheading our troops if they had their way? If so, how? It's one thing if they were actively attacking our troops when captured, quite another when they're not. I don't think we should sit in judgement and extract punishment without due process. If you want to extract information, there's usually better ways than direct torture, even in time-critical cases.

Do you torture an innocent if it will save more lives? "I won't talk, but if you torture my 4-year old son maybe I would." That's how bad regimes torture for information and compel pliability. Should we? We've seen what some of our troops will do in Abu Ghraib. What stops that from happening again?

if it gets some information that will help the US win the war on terror, do whatever it takes to the rabs they have captive. saving thousands of americans is worth the comfort of a few of our enemies

What has this enemy done to make you think that they will offer Convention rights to our POWs??? Ever???

Abu Graib is the most overblown non story ever reported in the US. Who the fuck cared? Like I said before, if that was the only thing our troops had to fear in combat, they'd sleep in their holes with boners every night.

What has this enemy done to make you think that they will offer Convention rights to our POWs??? Ever???
Not all hostages of Islamic terrorists end up dead or mutilated.


Abu Graib is the most overblown non story ever reported in the US. Who the fuck cared? Like I said before, if that was the only thing our troops had to fear in combat, they'd sleep in their holes with boners every night.
Events like Abu Ghraib fuel the next generation of terrorists. It's not our troops that have to worry, unless you think milizarizing within U.S. borders is the answer.

If you want to curtail the growth of terrorism, then stop acting like the fucking terrorists.

By contrast, if you want to turn back the clock on civilization and stoop to their level, be prepared for more millenia of attacks.

Not all hostages of Islamic terrorists end up dead or mutilated.

You're right buddy, but who's track record do you like, ours or theirs??? If your family was in the hands of either the US Military or Islamic extremists, with which group would you sleep better at night?



Events like Abu Ghraib fuel the next generation of terrorists. It's not our troops that have to worry, unless you think milizarizing within U.S. borders is the answer.

If you want to curtail the growth of terrorism, then stop acting like the fucking terrorists.

By contrast, if you want to turn back the clock on civilization and stoop to their level, be prepared for more millenia of attacks.

We can be as nice to them as we want, they will still hate us. They hate us because we aren't Islamic. It's that simple.

And yes, it is our troops who have to worry. How many terrorist attacks have there been over here since 9/11? How many have been stopped? All those who complain about the war in Iraq but fail to realize that we've brought the fight to them, and our brave soldiers and marines are picking up the death toll so that innocent americans don't have to.

Not all hostages of Islamic terrorists end up dead or mutilated.

You're right buddy, but who's track record do you like, ours or theirs??? If your family was in the hands of either the US Military or Islamic extremists, with which group would you sleep better at night?
I've had a close family member detained at various times by:

- Afghani mujahadeen
- the U.S. army, and
- the Soviet army

for being in the wrong place at the wrong time (Afghanistan when the U.S.S.R. invaded on Christmas 1979). I didn't sleep well through any of it.


We can be as nice to them as we want, they will still hate us. They hate us because we aren't Islamic. It's that simple.
No, it's not that simple. There's oil involved.


And yes, it is our troops who have to worry.
Oops... I meant "not just our troops" -- was gonna bold the just like so, but somehow managed to whack it instead. The civilians are a bigger target, and we have more troops on other people's borders than our own.


How many terrorist attacks have there been over here since 9/11? How many have been stopped? All those who complain about the war in Iraq but fail to realize that we've brought the fight to them, and our brave soldiers and marines are picking up the death toll so that innocent americans don't have to.
There's lots of U.S. allies that continue to be hit. There's no reason to think that we won't be hit again. Many of the extremist elements aren't where our troops are. Most of what keeps them at bay involves their being too busy beating each other up (often with our encouragement, to keep oil flowing).

And yes, it is our troops who have to worry. How many terrorist attacks have there been over here since 9/11? How many have been stopped? All those who complain about the war in Iraq but fail to realize that we've brought the fight to them, and our brave soldiers and marines are picking up the death toll so that innocent americans don't have to.

Irony, ftw. Afghanistan was a rats nest of terrorist bases and training. Jihadi wannabes came from around the globe to earn their stripes and take terror 101. Graduates emerged with basic boot camp skills and a souvenir manual. We invaded and shut that down, leaving only scattered riff raff.

Iraq had scattered riff raff and old school retired terrorists. We invaded and created a rats nest of terrorist bases and training where wannabe jihadis from around the globe flock to earn their stripes in real-world terror school. The graduates emerge hardened and experienced in cutting edge techniques, having proven themselves against the us military.

Gee, its worthless.

When you're dealing with someeone whose brain capacity is only large enough for Limbaugh/Coulter/O'Reilly/Hannity'esque buzz words, which is the majority of those on the right, all they can handle is talking points, and two-to-three word catch phrases without their heads exploding.

There simply isn't enough brain power to utilize large enough sentences, with actual factual support, to convince them of the truth.

If Cruscott wants to believe "its Adam and Even, not Adam and Steve", and if Cruscott doesn't want to "cut and run", and if Cruscutt "would rather fight them there than fight them here", and if Cruscott wants someone who keeps changing his position on major issues and is a hero of not showing up for national guard duty instead of a "flip flopping swift boater" in the White House, what're ya gonna do?

Facts are not important.

Not one bit.

No on CARES what Afganistan and Iraq were like before the war.

"I'd rather fight them there than fight them here."

Nuff said, as far as Cruscott is concerned. Forget the debate. Forget even about where there is, who they are, and what we are trying to accomplish. Its too much to fit into a single buzz word talking point catch phrase.

All I can say is about Cruscott is "stupid is as stupid does".

How's that for a talking point catch phrase buzz word?

Wow -- much can change in 3 months: No Taymelo. The torture bill. etc.

Here's the latest world opinions on torture:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6063386.stm

I'm channeling Taymelo's energy as we speak. It seems to be coming from the LEFT....


Uncle Mxy is a right wing, Fox friendly fascist poopoohead

Whoa (shakes head). Did... did I just say something? That was really weird.

0gmoXlNdElM

59% against all torture
29% support some torture

87% Support any torture Jack Bauer thinks is necessary