Evidence Gained Through Using Torture OK, US Officials Say

[JDeuce]

Now, since Afghanistan had no real army to speak of when it was attacked, exactly how do you propose to find yourselves uniformed soldiers?

You're right...they didn't have any. So guess what...our actions therefore again did not violate the GC. Go read the text of the GC...because you don't seem to understand my point. Sorry, but I'm right...and you're wrong.

If your gripe is they didn't have any uniforms to begin with...well, I'm not mistaken, it is against the code of the GC to fight for a given country in war without wearing that country's military attire. If they have none, then they can't be uniformed soldiers.

No? Then how come so many were released when a big stink was made? What evidence do you have that these prisoners are being held with just cause? Are you aware that Afghanis are turning people in for a fifty and a song these days? Without any form of due process, you have no idea if all of these people are justifiably incarcerated.

First...the prisoners were not released because of the big stink of the media. They were released because we got all the info we felt we could out of them, and basically had to make room for the next round of visitors.

I don't know the status of every single detained inmate, so I won't pretend to. But I'm trusting our soldiers and interrogators do know. Do you really believe our whole military is just a wild bunch of crazy coots who love to round up innocent civilians just to drag them to the other side of the world...and yell "YEEE-HAH!!" while throwing them into a prison cell?

If some of the imprisoned are innocent...hey, I'm sorry. It happens all the time in prisons all over the world. But they're living better now than they were before, and I'd be willing to guess that our military has it right for about 95% of the people who are being detained.

Also, please show me a link on the massive witch-hunt type campaign where Afghanis are turning completely innocent people in to soldiers for $50.

It's because we need a recourse should our own soldiers be mistreated while in custody.

Riiiight. They're certainly playing by the GC rules so far, aren't they? If they don't have to, why should we? And I'm sure the fundamentalists who are psyched up for their own deaths are deeply concerned about possible future sanctions of an international war committee.

Yeah? You got a link with pictures and stuff?

Actually, yes: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1766037.stm

Your vast arrogance is positively unbelievable.

Not nearly as unbelievable as your naievity...and staunch anti-US attutide.

 

[xpanda]

You're right...they didn't have any. So guess what...our actions therefore again did not violate the GC. Go read the text of the GC...because you don't seem to understand my point. Sorry, but I'm right...and you're wrong.

I do not misunderstand your point. I know that there are no laws in place which specifically apply to this type of prisoner. They are not POWs, but they are also not criminals. Which is precisely why the US gov't is getting away with Gitmo.

My point, and you and I vehemently disagree with this, is that the US is reserving the right to torture these people if it suits their purposes. This violates the spirit of both Geneva and your Constitution.

Do you see what I'm saying?

If your gripe is they didn't have any uniforms to begin with...well, I'm not mistaken, it is against the code of the GC to fight for a given country in war without wearing that country's military attire. If they have none, then they can't be uniformed soldiers.

I know this also. I also know that if Canada were to be invaded, I'd be a sniper overnight. I suspect the same is true of the US, where so many of you are armed. You would be subjected to a Gitmo-type place, because no laws would apply to you.

First...the prisoners were not released because of the big stink of the media. They were released because we got all the info we felt we could out of them, and basically had to make room for the next round of visitors.

Hundreds at a time??????

But I'm trusting our soldiers and interrogators ...

After Abu Ghraib, why should you?

Do you really believe our whole military is just a wild bunch of crazy coots who love to round up innocent civilians just to drag them to the other side of the world...and yell "YEEE-HAH!!" while throwing them into a prison cell?

Nope. But I sure do think Rumsfeld and Bush are like that ... it's that whole 'trickle-down' theory.

If some of the imprisoned are innocent...hey, I'm sorry. It happens all the time in prisons all over the world. But they're living better now than they were before, and I'd be willing to guess that our military has it right for about 95% of the people who are being detained.

What the -- ????

Also, please show me a link on the massive witch-hunt type campaign where Afghanis are turning completely innocent people in to soldiers for $50.

You're right. It's conjecture that they're turning in innocent people. It's speculative, based on the widespread poverty in Afghanistan and the warlording mentality running most of the show there. It's also based on the aforementioned release of hundreds of prisoners who'd done nothing wrong.

Riiiight. They're certainly playing by the GC rules so far, aren't they? If they don't have to, why should we? And I'm sure the fundamentalists who are psyched up for their own deaths are deeply concerned about possible future sanctions of an international war committee.

If the terrorists who behead their captives are your new moral compass, we're all fücked.

 

[xpanda]

Not nearly as unbelievable as your naievity...and staunch anti-US attutide.

If being anti-torture is synonymous with being anti-American, well, guilty as charged, then.

 

[bblight]

If being anti-torture is synonymous with being anti-American, well, guilty as charged, then.

xpanda - during all of your diatribe, I have yet to see you provide any kind of detail of what torure has been used by the US. Where fingernails ripped off? Cigarette burns applied to tender parts of the body? Tongues ripped out?

I think you're confusing mild abuse of a very few prisoners at Abu Graib and Gitmo with torture applied to all prisoners.

 

[xpanda]

xpanda - during all of your diatribe, I have yet to see you provide any kind of detail of what torure has been used by the US. Where fingernails ripped off? Cigarette burns applied to tender parts of the body? Tongues ripped out?

I think you're confusing mild abuse of a very few prisoners at Abu Graib and Gitmo with torture applied to all prisoners.

If and when I accuse them of torture at Gitmo, please feel free to come back here and reiterate this statement. This article is not about whether or not torture is happening there, but that torture has been given clearance as an interrogation method. You expect that kind of crap from Lybia or some such place, not the US.

(your diminishment of the Abu Ghraib issue is brutal, btw. You put electrodes on your nuts and call it mild abuse. Have you seen the rape photos, btw? Rape hardly qualifies as mild abuse, either. Again, I expect alot more from the US.)

 

[JDeuce]

They are not POWs, but they are also not criminals. Which is precisely why the US gov't is getting away with Gitmo.


'Getting away' with Gitmo? Pfft. We're going to continue to do things within the rules in whatever way we see fit...and if the socialist candy asses from around the world don't like it, too fvcking bad. If you're not looking to pull off massive attacks on America or Americans around the globe, then you have nothing to worry about.

No one said war time was fun...it is indeed hell. And much to the dismay of our own press and resident lefties, we're going to have to use some pretty unpleasant practices in this war. I'm sorry, but in war time...there is just no other way to go at it if you plan on winning.

Or can you cite me one single example from history when any war was resolved with gentle pacifism?

And the guys at Gitmo are 'Not criminals'? You're telling me that not one single prisoner in Gitmo is a criminal? Come on, XP. I know you're smarter than that. The inmates are there because they're conspiring to attack the USA. There have been plenty of reports stating that a good number of the CRIMINALS down there are repeatedly saying their mission is to kill as many Americans as possible. If I'm caught conspiring to assasinate someone...even though I technically haven't done anything yet, my ass is still destined for the pokey. It's no different with these terrorist ******** ...


This violates the spirit of both Geneva and your Constitution. Do you see what I'm saying?


That's an opinion, not a fact....since 'spirit' is kind of a gray area.

We already agreed that it doesn't violate anything in the GC, and it certainly doesn't violate anything in the Constitution.



I also know that if Canada were to be invaded, I'd be a sniper overnight.


Before or after you howl to the USA to come help...eh?


After Abu Ghraib, why should you?

Because not every single interrogator or soldier is using the same tactics that the Abu Ghraib soldiers did. You can't assume that because a few of them did it, that must mean it's S.O.P for every American soldier or interrogator.

As far as the 'abuse' at AG, let me put it to you this way. These ******** we're dealing with do not fear death...they actually embrace it and pray for it to happen at the hands of the 'infidel.' That's the fastest way to meet Allah and get their 70 virgins. What they DO fear is humiliation, especially from women. Do you think its a coincidence that most of the AG prison pictures had women committing the acts?

This is how you make these people understand we mean business. They don't understand negotiations. They don't understand the concept of compromising. They DO understand brute force and harsh interrogation tactics.



If the terrorists who behead their captives are your new moral compass, we're all fücked.


Do you see any American soldiers beheading people? I hope you had just as much (if not more) outrage when you watched people getting their heads hacked off as you did from these fraternity prank AG photos...<!-- / message -->

 

[GAMEFACE]

They are being released not because they are not murdering terrorist. They are being released because it's impossible to build a convictable case against them unless they are prepared to confess, which is not going to happen.

Have any heads at Gitmo been lopped off?

 

[Shotgun]

Well, that's where we're different then. I would be fuming that my government was even discussing the use of torture on prisoners, never mind advocating it ... so why should the people responsible for Abu Ghraib be given the benefit of the doubt in Guantanamo?? It defies logic, Shotgun.

Xpanda, Canada only cares about torture when the US may be involved...nothing is more fun than spitting in the big kid's face while the teacher is hanging around. If another country is involved it quickly sticks its head into the sand and pretend all is well.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2003/09/10/181316.html

Sampson's ordeal is Canada's shame
Feds took see-no-evil approach to his claims of Saudi torture
By PETER WORTHINGTON

Bill Sampson, recently released from a Saudi Arabian prison, has been telling his story in the National Post and on Global television, and as horrific as his ordeal was, even more appalling is the Canadian government's behaviour throughout. The Canadian government, first through John Manley as foreign minister and then his successor Bill Graham, was not only reluctant to believe allegations of torture but sided with the Saudis. After Sampson's release, the most conceded by Mr. Graham has been that there was "mistreatment."
....
Sampson's accounts are graphic: Strung upside down and beaten, the soles of his feet whipped, being forced to squat, arms tied around his legs and a bar pushed under his knees and then hung between chairs and spun and beaten, his genitals hit, testicles stamped on, and more.

"No evidence of torture," insisted the Canadian government for 31 months of his imprisonment on trumped up charges. Sampson was sentenced to death in secret -- not by beheading as we understand the term, but tied to a cross and his throat sliced with a sword, leaving the spinal column intact. Civilized, eh?

According to Sampson, when he was visited by consular official he was told what to say, with his torturers present at the interview. The official, who couldn't have cared less, also read from a script: "Are you being well treated? Tortured? Getting books and letters from home?"

Sampson mumbled appropriately, knowing his fate if he departed from script. Canada was satisfied.

LAZY, SILENT TWITS

What kind of twits comprise our foreign service? I'll tell you -- lazy types who don't make waves, whose interpretation of Canada's notorious "quiet diplomacy" is silence and refusing to see evil where evil persists.
...
As Sampson's indictment of our government continues, we have more evidence of Canada's apathy toward terror, thanks to an investigation by the CBC's Terry Milewski into the 1985 Air India bombing.

It seems CSIS was warned about the plan to blow up two Air India planes simultaneously half a world apart -- one in Japan that went off prematurely and killed two baggage handlers, the other off Ireland that killed 329 -- the greatest terrorist death toll until 9/11. CSIS even had a confession on tape of planned assassinations, but did nothing -- perhaps because it knew Ottawa takes no action against terrorists. (During the Cold War, Canada never caught and prosecuted a single, genuine Soviet KGB agent. The only Soviet spy we convicted turned out to be an MP exposed by Igor Gouzenko).

CSIS NEGLIGENCE

The Air India tragedy was negligence by CSIS, possibly enhanced by the knowledge that Ottawa wouldn't deport a Sikh terrorist.

Bill Sampson's case is a greater indictment of Canadian policy than it is of Saudi Arabia, about which we shouldn't harbour illusions.

What could Canada have done for Sampson in prison? Easy, we should have been prepared to expel the Saudi ambassador, cut cultural and trade relations, ban Saudis from entering Canada, treat that country as an enemy if necessary.

If we had any reputation for standing up for innocent citizens in trouble, Sampson would have been freed soon after his arrest.

Shame on Bill Graham; shame on Jean Chretien; shame on Canada.

 

[xpanda]

'Getting away' with Gitmo? Pfft. We're going to continue to do things within the rules in whatever way we see fit...and if the socialist candy asses from around the world don't like it, too fvcking bad. If you're not looking to pull off massive attacks on America or Americans around the globe, then you have nothing to worry about.

No one said war time was fun...it is indeed hell. And much to the dismay of our own press and resident lefties, we're going to have to use some pretty unpleasant practices in this war. I'm sorry, but in war time...there is just no other way to go at it if you plan on winning.

My one-woman army isn't going to stop Gitmo. So you guys have your little prisoner hideaway where god-only-knows-what goes on (or doesn't) and let your worst enemies use their imaginations to fill in the blanks. It is your future soldiers taken as prisoners of war who will suffer for it.

And the guys at Gitmo are 'Not criminals'? You're telling me that not one single prisoner in Gitmo is a criminal? Come on, XP. I know you're smarter than that.

Thank you for the veiled compliment. And, no, I never said that not one of the prisoners there isn't guilty of something. But without charges being laid and a trial put to task, we'll never know the exact numbers, will we? If even one inmate is being held without due cause and is being tortured, you've got a serious problem on your hand.

The reason you aren't winning in Iraq is because they think you're all full of shít. They think you're hypocrites. Gitmo isn't helping your cause one iota and it's adding to the distance your allies are moving away from you.

The inmates are there because they're conspiring to attack the USA. There have been plenty of reports stating that a good number of the CRIMINALS down there are repeatedly saying their mission is to kill as many Americans as possible. If I'm caught conspiring to assasinate someone...even though I technically haven't done anything yet, my ass is still destined for the pokey. It's no different with these terrorist ******** ...

A fifteen-year-old Canadian boy was held for two years at Gitmo and finally released without ever having seen charges. If he was conspiring to attack the US, he would have been charged, but he wasn't. He knew stuff, absolutely. He worked as an informant for the CIA. Then he was sent to Gitmo. Now he's back here.

Plus, in something like 5000 arrests under the Patriot Act, none have resulted in a conviction. I'd say the margin for error is pretty freakin' high with these guys, no?

Presuming guilt is what barbarians like Saddam do to their prisoners, not so-called civilised societies.

This violates the spirit of both Geneva and your Constitution. Do you see what I'm saying?

That's an opinion, not a fact....since 'spirit' is kind of a gray area.

Thou shalt not torture is not a grey area, my friend. The ONLY reason Geneva doesn't apply in this case is that these detainees are not wearing a uniform. End of story.

We already agreed that it doesn't violate anything in the GC, and it certainly doesn't violate anything in the Constitution.

Technicality for now. I suspect that there will be attempts to re-write Geneva or some kind of International Law to apply to these kind of prisoners.

I also know that if Canada were to be invaded, I'd be a sniper overnight.

Before or after you howl to the USA to come help...eh?

This is an entirely different thread, but the only country capable of invading Canada and occupying her is, well, the US. So, uh, no.

Because not every single interrogator or soldier is using the same tactics that the Abu Ghraib soldiers did. You can't assume that because a few of them did it, that must mean it's S.O.P for every American soldier or interrogator.

(what does S.O.P. stand for?)

I don't think every soldier is doing what those at Abu Ghraib did. But here's the deal: the same fúckers who made Abu Ghraib possible made Gitmo possible, too. And the fact alone that they're trying to determine if evidence obtained via torture is usable or not says to me that they at least are considering it as a possibility.

As far as the 'abuse' at AG, let me put it to you this way. These ******** we're dealing with do not fear death...they actually embrace it and pray for it to happen at the hands of the 'infidel.' That's the fastest way to meet Allah and get their 70 virgins. What they DO fear is humiliation, especially from women. Do you think its a coincidence that most of the AG prison pictures had women committing the acts?

You're making my point for me, here. Psychological torture comes in a ton of forms, and the US defence department knows exactly how to get to these guys. Oh, and so you know ... most Muslims don't believe they get 72 virgins when they go to heaven, and the vast majority of prisoners at Abu Ghraib are just regular Iraqi people.

This is how you make these people understand we mean business. They don't understand negotiations. They don't understand the concept of compromising. They DO understand brute force and harsh interrogation tactics.

Prove it.

Do you see any American soldiers beheading people? I hope you had just as much (if not more) outrage when you watched people getting their heads hacked off as you did from these fraternity prank AG photos...<!-- / message -->

Because we expect a terrorist to act like a terrorist. We don't expect the same from the US army. Somewhere in the backs of our minds, most of us think the average American is actually a decent person. Which is why Abu Ghraib shocked us all so much. But, more importantly, when you're trying to make the world over in your image, you have to make that image attractive. Sanctioning the use of torture creates the opposite effect.

 

[xpanda]

Xpanda, Canada only cares about torture when the US may be involved...nothing is more fun than spitting in the big kid's face while the teacher is hanging around. If another country is involved it quickly sticks its head into the sand and pretend all is well.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2003/09/10/181316.html

It's all so cute when you go hunting for Canada-did-it-too! articles to deflect from the original argument. This situation, when it became public, was decried by the citizens, by the media, and by the gov't. However, this is still a far cry from the Canadian government gathering together to figure out how to set up a prison where they can get away with torturing the inmates.

I would remind you about this case, too:

Canadian's Case Called Typical of CIA


<!--plsfield:byline-->By DeNeen L. Brown and Dana Priest
<!--plsfield:credit-->Washington Post Staff Writers
<!--plsfield:disp_date-->Wednesday, November 5, 2003; Page A01


<!--plsfield:description--><NITF>TORONTO, Nov. 4 -- A Canadian citizen who was detained last year at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York as a suspected terrorist said Tuesday he was secretly deported to Syria and endured 10 months of torture in a Syrian prison.</NITF>

<NITF>Maher Arar, 33, who was released last month, said at a news conference in Ottawa that he pleaded with U.S. authorities to let him continue on to Canada, where he has lived for 15 years and has a family. But instead, he was flown under U.S. guard to Jordan and handed over to Syria, where he was born. Arar denied any connection to terrorism and said he would fight to clear his name.</NITF>

<NITF>U.S. officials said Tuesday that Arar was deported because he had been put on a terrorist watch list after information from "multiple international intelligence agencies" linked him to terrorist groups.</NITF>

<NITF>Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the Arar case fits the profile of a covert CIA "extraordinary rendition" -- the practice of turning over low-level, suspected terrorists to foreign intelligence services, some of which are known to torture prisoners.</NITF>

This pissed me off, too. The RCMP have much explaining to do in this case as well. But it's still not the same thing as deliberately setting up a prison where neither Geneva nor the Constitution apply.

 

[eek.]

The reason you aren't winning in Iraq is because they think you're all full of shít. They think you're hypocrites. Gitmo isn't helping your cause one iota and it's adding to the distance your allies are moving away from you.

mmmm...Not very diplomatic honey, but you do have a point.

Maybe if the US did stop trying to pretend it would help.
They lop off heads while the US drops 1000 pounders on civilian areas and has political prisoners.
And both sides murder bucketloads of civilians in pursuit of their objectives.

Sounds like business as usual for the human race.