BF2S Forums See? Torture DOES work!

Worse example of someone getting pwned in their own thread then going all out emo. GG

Best example, I meant to say.

Last edited by rawls2 (2008-05-08 16:01:31)

Kmarion wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Because three known, proven, documented high-level AQ operatives were waterboarded years ago. Generalization and hyperbole ftl.

I thought it was only two. I know it was immediately following the attacks in an attempt to get information on the next targets. Doesn't matter you 'd think that the entire ME had been water boarded listening to the media. I also thought I heard somewhere that interrogators had to go through it as training also... or at least something like that.

It was three, including KSM. Yes, the interrogators have to go through it, as do certain elements of the military when going through SERE training, I believe.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Please stop hijacking/thread crapping.  You win dude.

You just got owned so bad....

Dilbert_X wrote:

Because three known, proven, documented high-level AQ operatives were waterboarded years ago. Generalization and hyperbole ftl.

No generalisation or hyperbole at all.
We know for sure:
The US uses other methods of torture besides waterboarding, congress saw fit to make them illegal, restricting actions to the Field manual remember?
'Detainees' at gitmo have been subject to extensive torture techniques besides waterboarding, we can list them if you like.
Not forgetting Abu Ghraib, where 'roughing up' was sanctioned at a senior level, Bagram air base and numerous other US bases where torture is known to occur.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u … 432253.ece
Plus we know the US delivers abductees to third countries where the certainty is they we will tortured and the information gained will be sent back to the US.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p … 883011.ece
So don't tell me the US govt has only tortured 3 people lately.

However you look at it:-
If he was a terrorist torture at Gitmo got nothing out of him.
If he wasn't a terrorist before he certianly was one after Gitmo.
Either way Gitmo failed as it continues to, the reputation of the US as a champion of freedom has gone down the toilet and the US is no further ahead. 2,000 Americans killed on 9/11, 4,000 since - is that progress?

Well according to your logic, progress would have been made by doing nothing.  Look what the US has done.  All but destroyed the taliban in Afganistan.  Dealt with a evil dictator.  Oh what did his people see fit to do to him?  Did they let him go? I wonder how many Al Quaida/insurgents/people that want Americans are dead?  I honestly don't give a fuck about the "rights" of these individuals.  If hooking a car battery up to their nipples will save one US citizen, then all I've got to say is that red is positive and black is negative.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Well according to your logic, progress would have been made by doing nothing.

No, progress would have been made by using a bit of lateral thinking and doing something constructive.

Look what the US has done.  All but destroyed the taliban in Afganistan.

But let most of the Taleban and Al Qaeda slip away into Pakistan - The Taleban didn't attack the US anyway.

Dealt with a evil dictator.

Funny - he was a bang up decent guy when he was a US proxy.

I wonder how many Al Quaida/insurgents/people that want Americans are dead?

Dunno, how many? How many more have been radicalised? I bet its more.

I honestly don't give a fuck about the "rights" of these individuals.

Then don't be too surprised that they don't give a fuck about you either.

Well, you presented an argument based on body count. I called you on it.  So...

I'd say those Al quaieda/talliban fucks are in little dank holes curled up in rotting blankets.

Next time please afford us the use of your crystal ball so we'll know what to do.

It's because they don't give a fuck about Americans other than wanting us dead why I don't give a fuck about them or people like you.

BTW, Congress also saw fit to approve them beforehand...to include the Democrat leadership.

Doesn't mean a thing, the Nazi high command approved incinerating the jews. Does that mean it wasn't a war crime?
Thankfully its not the US Congress which determines these things.

The only sanctioned "torture" you or anyone else can point to is waterboarding. And three people got waterboarded. Just because you view other methods of treatment or interrogation as torture do not make them torture.

Well lets go with the International Convention on torture then.
'Article 1
1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3
1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.'

Looks to me like the USA is guilty under all three.
Its not just me, even your cruddy congress has backtracked and limited it to the US Field Manual.
Multiple people have died in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram etc - killed or suicide - I'd say there is a severe regime in place there, and there is extensive documented torture.
Even if the maltreatment of POWs and abductees does not meet the definition of torture, "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" is independently proscribed by Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Really Bush and Cheney and anyone who followed their orders should have been given the long drop, just like Nuremburg.

BTW, one former military member making claims and one internee at Gitmo making claims do not a case make.

They were just two examples I cited, there are many more out there, and not forgetting what the US has admitted to already.
Even 'only' three waterboardings, those CIA guys should be facing life in a dank hole.

You have absolutely nothing to base that on. You don't know one way or the other what, if any, intelligence was gotten from this guy before he was given to the Kuwaitis.

It wasn't enough for the US to charge him with anything, it wasn't enough for the Kuwaitis to hold him. I'll guess there never was anything.
You can't just grab random people off the street and torture them until they admit to something.

d say the rendition flights and what has come out about those have been more damaging to the US's reputation than Gitmo. Not to mention Abu Ghraib.

Finally you noticed, however most people don't even know about the rendition, everyone knows about Guantanamo.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-05-12 03:02:19)

Dilbert_X wrote:

BTW, Congress also saw fit to approve them beforehand...to include the Democrat leadership.

Doesn't mean a thing, the Nazi high command approved incinerating the jews. Does that mean it wasn't a war crime?
Thankfully its not the US Congress which determines these things.

Nor is it you.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The only sanctioned "torture" you or anyone else can point to is waterboarding. And three people got waterboarded. Just because you view other methods of treatment or interrogation as torture do not make them torture.

Well lets go with the International Convention on torture then.
'Article 1
1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Looks to me like the USA is guilty under all three.
Its not just me, even your cruddy congress has backtracked and limited it to the US Field Manual.
Multiple people have died in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram etc - killed or suicide - I'd say there is a severe regime in place there, and there is extensive documented torture.

Define "severe". You define it differently than I do. It's open to interpretation, which was the basis of the "lawfulness" determination by the USG.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Even if the maltreatment of POWs and abductees does not meet the definition of torture, "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" is independently proscribed by Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Again, those adjectives are open to interpretation. Regardless, violation of the UDHR doesn't constitute a war crime.

Dilbert_X wrote:

BTW, one former military member making claims and one internee at Gitmo making claims do not a case make.

They were just two examples I cited, there are many more out there, and not forgetting what the US has admitted to already.
Even 'only' three waterboardings, those CIA guys should be facing life in a dank hole.

If there are "many more out there" (I'm assuming corroborated in some way), then you should easily be able to provide them for our reading pleasure.

Dilbert_X wrote:

You have absolutely nothing to base that on. You don't know one way or the other what, if any, intelligence was gotten from this guy before he was given to the Kuwaitis.

It wasn't enough for the US to charge him with anything, it wasn't enough for the Kuwaitis to hold him. I'll guess there never was anything.

You have no idea whether he was charged with anything or not. Enemy combatants don't have to be charged with anything to be held.

Dilbert_X wrote:

You can't just grab random people off the street and torture them until they admit to something.

You're right. This guy wasn't "random", he wasn't grabbed "off the street", and (as far as anyone knows) he wasn't "tortured until he admitted to something."

Dilbert_X wrote:

d say the rendition flights and what has come out about those have been more damaging to the US's reputation than Gitmo. Not to mention Abu Ghraib.

Finally you noticed, however most people don't even know about the rendition, everyone knows about Guantanamo.

Nothing "final" about it. Regardless of whether I agree with it or not, it has damaged the US's reputation. It's just a matter of whether it was worth it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Define "severe". You define it differently than I do. It's open to interpretation, which was the basis of the "lawfulness" determination by the USG.

Again, the opinion of the US govt is irrelevant.

Again, you're wrong. When there is room for interpretation (as there is here), the lawfulness of a country's actions (or inactions) are determined, in large part, by the interpretation of the statute. Therefore, the "opinion" of the US govt (or UK, or AUS, or GE govt) is ENTIRELY relevant. Whether you choose to accept/agree with it or not is what is irrelevant.

Dilbert_X wrote:

In any event you forgot to read the second line.
'2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.'
Any interrogations should have been restricted to the US Field manual for a start.

The only parties bound by the Army (as opposed to US) Field Manual is the Army.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Reading on to Article 16 and 17.
'Article 16
1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 17 "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." '
So its pretty thoroughly covered.

Again, open to interpretation of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

Dilbert_X wrote:

Again, those adjectives are open to interpretation. Regardless, violation of the UDHR doesn't constitute a war crime.

You need to read up on the Geneva convention regarding war crimes.

Unless the UDHR suddenly is part of the Geneva Convention, no...I don't.

Dilbert_X wrote:

You have no idea whether he was charged with anything or not. Enemy combatants don't have to be charged with anything to be held.

Oh so they're enemy combatants now are they? I thought they were unlawful combatants.

Tomato, tomahto. Either way, they aren't afforded the same concessions under the Geneva Convention.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If there are "many more out there" (I'm assuming corroborated in some way), then you should easily be able to provide them for our reading pleasure.

I can't be bothered. We are all well aware of what is going on at the various US detention camps. We've read the reports, seen the pictures and the CIA has admitted it so I don't need to. Do your own research.

That's right, take the seagull approach. Come in, squawk a bunch of foundationless crap, and fly away. Since YOU made the claim, the burden is on YOU to back up your claim. Since you are either unwilling or unable to back it up, it's worth the proverbial paper it's printed on.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its a waste of time anyway. You never provide sources for anything but pile sarcastic ridicule on anything anyone else puts forward.
I can't be bothered to try and convince the #1 Cheerleader on BF2S for the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld team that maybe torturing people is not a good thing, and that adhering to international conventions and the rules of war is as much in the interests of the US as everyone else.

And here we go.

Point out the sarcastic ridicule in this thread toward your posts. Once again, you can't prove your point or back up your opinion, so you resort to "you're being mean and calling me names" when I've done nothing of the sort. Except now: Man up, Nancy.

If you read my post history, you'll see that I'm hardly the "#1 cheerleader" here for those people. I've repeatedly stated that I'm no fan of any of them and that Rumsfeld specifically was horrendous. But don't let the facts stand in the way of your name-calling.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Seriously Dilbert, we and the majority of the world are wrong, and he's right.  Yield to superior knowledge and opinion manufacturing now or perish in pwnage like I did...  lol

Or just back up your claims. Pretty simple.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Again, open to interpretation of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

Then why don't you put forward a definition which allows:-
-Drowning people to the point of suffocation

Does it cause lasting physical pain/discomfort/injury? No.

-Stringing people up with handcuffs until their hands become gangrenous and have to be amputated

And those who did this were prosecuted...because it's illegal.

-Threatening to rape and murder peoples relatives and violence to their children

If it went beyond threats, then yes. Since it didn't, no. Words aren't "torture".

-Days, weeks and months of sleep deprivation

Nope.

-Threatening naked people with attack dogs

Were they actually attacked? No? Then nope.

I can't think of one which allows the above examples, all practised by the US in recent times.

Of course you can't.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Unless the UDHR suddenly is part of the Geneva Convention, no...I don't.

Oops I mis-pasted. The article was from the Geneva convention.
'Third Geneva Convention (1949) Article 17 "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."'
Funny you're not familiar with the Geneva convention

Actually, I'm quite familiar with it...you're the one who claimed it was the UDHR, not me. And the argument there is whether terrorists/insurgents fall under the category of "prisoners of war". Some believe they do, some believe they don't.

Dilbert_X wrote:

But no doubt you'll come out with the 'unlawful combatant' crap which is also well covered, people are either combatants or civilians, there is no intermediate status.

Go back and read it again. It's not about whether they're a combatant or not. It's whether they're a POW or a civilian that's under debate.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Since you are either unwilling or unable to back it up, it's worth the proverbial paper it's printed on.

Its as valid as your opinion - which you never back up with anything.

Wow. How does that selective memory work for you in your real life?

BTW Maybe you can tell us how you would get 'reading pleasure' from accounts of torture?

I wouldn't, but I would like to see you back up your claims with something other than hyperbole.

And why are you so keen to justify torture exactly?

I'm not. But I am keen on debating...particularly with those who use lazy logic and don't back up their positions with anything but emotion.

Why do international conventions relating to the treatment of human beings not concern you at all?

They do. And so does stopping those who would target innocent people simply because they aren't Muslim.

Someone else has accused you of being a Cheney lapdog and I agree.

Of course you do. And you would be equally wrong.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Does it (waterboarding) cause lasting physical pain/discomfort/injury? No.

Yes it can, there are many physical effects - brain damage, heart damage, eye damage etc etc.

It CAN, but only if taken to an extreme...which hasn't been done.

If it went beyond threats, then yes. Since it didn't, no. Words aren't "torture".

Psychological torture is covered.
Tell me how many US soldiers suffered no physical damage at all but suffer severe PTSD.
Think how six years of illegal detention would affect you.

So now long-term detention is "torture"?

Were they actually attacked? No? Then nope.

Try it on your kids, and see how your wife reacts. I reckon she'll tell you stripping someone naked and threatening them with dogs is pretty cruel.

Are my kids in a prison because they are suspected of killing or planning to kill US service members or civilians? Didn't think so. Lazy logic.

the argument there is whether terrorists/insurgents fall under the category of "prisoners of war". Some believe they do, some believe they don't.

Its only the US which believes they don't, and only part of the US at that. Your Congress voted my way incidentally.

I'll have to check up on that one, since you won't provide any source. I know Congress voted to make waterboarding illegal.

They do. And so does stopping those who would target innocent people simply because they aren't Muslim.

Thats not why they are attacking you.

Then why do they target Western civilans?

I'm not. But I am keen on debating...particularly with those who use lazy logic and don't back up their positions with anything but emotion.

Funny you only pick the fights which fit with the Cheney doctrine.

Funny you don't read more.

ATG wrote:

I believe that many of those held, if they are guilty, should neither be freed, or held.

If you catch my drift.

For myself i sure catch your drift...and i support it 100%

The European Court of Human Rights seems to agree with the USG's interpretation.

Not entirely.
'The Court found that these were a lesser offense within the Article 3 (art. 3), the practice of "inhuman and degrading treatment"'
Still an offense and a violation of the Geneva Convention.
Not everything is going to be torture, either way its illegal - my point earlier.

Which is followed. Because the Act was signed into law by Bush.

The manual was there before, why did Congress need to pass an act requiring that what was already in place be followed?

I don't agree with the veto, either.

Good for you, maybe we can be friends?

I have no idea what you're talking about here, but that's OK. But for you to call ANYONE self-righteous is the epitome of irony.

I have my values and beliefs, I don't give a toss if you think arguing torture is evil is bigoted or whatever.
I do at least have the Geneva Convention etc behind me.

As for Presidential rankings, read up a bit and get some historical perspective on the difference between incumbent ratings and ratings after history has had a chance to play itself out a bit.

So out of 43 presidents Truman makes the top 10? Woo hoo, what a winner.
I'd like to read up, your link fails.

History will be the judge on Bush - I dn't think its going to be kind.
-Asleep or playing golf while in the knowledge AQ were plotting to attack the US homeland.
-Too busy planning the Iraq invasion to catch Bin Laden.
-Invading Iraq on a pack of concocted crap.
-Presiding over US economic meltdown (despite inheriting a sound base from BJ Bill) and skyrocketing oil prices - thanks in significant part to instability in the ME created by GWB himself.

Not that I in any way think the same thing will happen with Bush, but he's far from the worst we've ever had.

I think he is the worst you've had. At least Reagan was senile so can't really be blamed for much. He did see in the end of the cold war though.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-05-18 03:31:36)