What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.149 Comments
- ahawks, on 10/12/2007, -9/+48And that is exactly why the rest of the world hates us. Who decides who the terrorists are? Where's the jurry, innocence until proven guilty, and separate parties deciding punnishment and verdict?
The torture is only half of the problem. The other, probably more important part is the laws that allow them to use these tactics on anyone they deem a "terrorist".
I mean *****, eBaumsworld.com claims to have filed charges against people who were DDoS'ing their website as "cyber terrorism".
I agree terrorists are bad, and we should do everything we can to put an end to that stuff, but we must uphold our values first. - sh0k, on 10/12/2007, -13/+29What makes up a terrorist, exactly?
The ability to kill without remorse?
The willingness to hurt innocents?
The desire to torture?
Look in the mirror. - spahn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18It's not defined? Have you actually read the Geneva Convention?
Geneva Convention Article 3:
"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict. "
Also note that SCOTUS has ruled that these rules apply to so called "enemy combatants" in the "war on terror." What's left to define? - ahawks, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19The thing that amazes me the most about this little spat we're having with the middle east is how both sides behave identically.
Terrorists/muslims/whoever: "The infidels must die! America is The Great Satan!"
Republicans: "The Axis of Evil must be brought down. We are in a holy war."
Liberals: "Bush supporters deserve dismemberment and death. Deny them their beliefs, their humanity".
And you know what, I'm going to invoke Godwin's law and compare everyone to the Nazi's. That's right. You know who else didn't believe people (Jews) deserved to be seen as human? The nazis.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) - ahawks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12...
This is under the "Political News" section.
But I know what the problem is. RSS feeds show *all* topics, regardless of what your preferences are. That's my complaint anyway. - Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18So basically... the ends justify the means?
- crkbbyx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17So when Bush and his assclowns come for you remember that torture is ok.
- fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15"If torturing a terrorist saves one innocent life, I'm all for it."
What if it costs an innocent life? Torture isn't known for providing reliable information. - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15To be honest, our torture is a lot milder than, say, medieval torture, but that doesn't exempt us from the fact that it IS torture. And mental and humiliation-based torture -- the majority of what we're doing (or told we're doing) over there -- is, if I'm not mistaken, outlawed via the Geneva conventions.
- Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20If torturing a terrorist saves one innocent life, but ruins the lives of 2 million more, then I don't know if I can be for it.
- bonked, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11BZZZZZZT - nixfu
"Article 3 -
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
Violence to life and person in particular murder, mulilation, cruel treatment and torture.
You see the convention specifically bans violence of all kinds to life and person, and particularly singles out torture as a subclass of that violence. Any violence toward a POW is outlawed.
Let's not even get into that pesky part about passing judgement without affording all teh judicial guarentees.
This is basic LOAC training in the DOD. - taotehue, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11just because Bush is an idiot is no reason to wish harm on those who support him. That wouldn't make you any better than Bush.
- grendelboogie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13"Leftists" (I assume you mean Liberals) aren't traitors. Just because someone doesn't agree with your point of view doesn't make them a traitor.
- Antagonist, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Wow that's a kinda biased title.
- ahawks, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@theblooms:
Interesting, thanks for linking to that.
However, I hate to be a conspirist... but denying someone clothing may not be torture, but I don't think it's exactly on the up and up. Also, an "air conditioned" cell could also be a term for say... a meat locker, no? - sh0k, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11@blooms
Terrorism is defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
So, if torture is UNLAWFUL....
You can finish that sentence. - washingtonydc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6ah yes, why not just stoop to their level? the US does not need moral superiority does it? if you can't beat 'em, join 'em? great strategy.
- dswinscoe, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11@theblooms: thanks for finally clearing that up. So by your logic, contrary to conservative rhetoric, Hiroshima and Nagasaki *do* qualify as State-sponsored terrorism: strapping nuclear weapons to your ass and blowing up 100,000 civilians, ON PURPOSE! Or elsewhere in the last 5 decades, http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/jkahn/entry/the_us_and_1/ , for example: "Guatemala, El Salvador and countless other countries suffered as US-backed militias left a trail of bodies through the eighties, as the US operated with a fundamentalist refusal to accept any socialdemocratic or progressive, let alone socialist, governments in the American hemisphere. To avoid this, hundreds of thousands of deaths were apparently justified." Terrorism is as terrorism does ... and the US has plenty of innocent civilian blood on its hands, too, so please stop pretending that this is so cut and dried.
- arfox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@zptao:
Rights are not granted or bestowed by a benevolent government. Nor are rights a kind of reward for good citizenship. Rights are a basic and integral portion of our humanity, being "unalienable" and all.
Take a civics course :b - buckynekkid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What a witty comeback. You really made me re-think my position with your perfect logic. Next time at least try to support your POV with something other than the equivalent of 'whateva'.
- Fryth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5When Bush says "we do not torture," he is referring to "torture" as defined by Alberto Gonzales, which is very specific: anything causing imminent organ failure or death. Of course, this definition is outside the Geneva definition of torture, and most countries' definitions.
- washingtonydc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I don't see what any of that has to do with the fact that our elected president has put forth policies that allow torture, violate international law, and weaken the United States.
- grendelboogie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"and you libs are too dumb to know it."
That really makes me want to listen to what you have to say.
I think the point that McCain, Warner and Graham (all staunch liberals!) are trying to make is that if we start redefining the Geneva Convention, then others will as well, perhaps to our detriment.
By trying to define all cases what is torture and what is not, we run the risk of leaving things out. While the current "vagueness" helps set a standard that makes should make interrogators think before they strike.
Torture has been shown to be an ineffective method of interrogation. That's mainly why most countries don't use it, humanitarian considerations aside. You hurt someone enough they will tell you anything, not necessarily anything useful.
As a standard, you might want to ask yourself, if the methods were applied to you, would you consider them inhumane and torturous. - brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6So what sets us apart from the terrorists then? They are the ones who torture and kill, so that's good justification?
Bush told Matt Lauer that he was trying to protect his family and his children. I say Mr. Bush, I would rather my children don't grow up in a totalitarian regime. What was the point of fighting the Taliban if we end up becoming a Western version of them? - Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@GeneralFault
I find your comment interesting.
The way I see it, America could with the war by just carpet bombing Iraq and Afghanistan until they have absolutely no desire whatsoever to oppose us anymore (like we did with Japan in WWII). The down side is that many innocent lives would be lost.
The second way to win a war is to gather intelligence and use that information to surgically remove the enemy and leave civilians alone. I think this is the type of war America is trying to fight. Unfortunately, you can't just Google enemy plans, locations, and activities. Like it or not, making people uncomfortable is still the most effective way of gaining that kind of intelligence.
So, I would prefer an America that used effective tactics against enemy combatants to gain information to help them root out the rest of the enemy combatants rather than an America that just went in and killed everybody.
I don't think your opinion makes you a traitor and I don't think mine does either.
What I do think makes some leftist traitors is that they are selling their nation out for personal or party power. Conservatives do it too, but they seem to be more subtle about it. - Detritus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7If torturing someone who thinks torturing someone to spare an innocent life, spares and innocent life then I'm all for it...
In all honesty... please consider the wonders that due process offers you. For instance: I can't just go tell the DoJ that you're a terrorist and them begin to apply the battery current. They have to take you out of the country first and that is just one of the many benefits due process offers! Due Process, ask your doctor if it is right for you... and if it is right for you, it must be right for everyone else. - GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8To those that support torture in the name of safety. Is that what you want the USA to be? Would you have your comfortable neat and tidy life supported by such ugly atrocities? Can you explain that position to your 6yr old little girl? Do you not have any love of our country and the high moral and ethical levels that we have set for ourselves? Is the threat of terrorism so great that you would have us give up human decency to the levels that would make your religious leaders detest you? Are we so weak that we cannot afford the moral high ground and still accomplish our goals? Is the gain of information quantitatively large enough to cover the loss of support and gain in enemies from even as little as the news of torture? Can you imagine torturing someone you know yourself? How sure would you have to be that the person in front of you is an enemy combatant and not just a person in the wrong place at the wrong time? If we torture one innocent, how can we not become the monster? If in a land of due process, DNA evidence and huge civil rights we still convict the wrong person occasionally, how can you be so sure that every one of the people in detention are indeed terrorists?
- dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Extremely severe and prolonged unpleasentness (but without lasting injury) isn't torture, is it?
One might torture 10 suspects and one real terrorist to save 10 other innocents, and it'd look like a good deal on paper, but you might create more enemies in the process, and nobody gives you enough credit for thwarting a serious attack. - buckynekkid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If you knew tapping every phone in America would prevent one terrorist attack would you give the government permission to do it? If the Pope had to kill one bum to save a bus full of kids would he? No, no, and no (that last one was @BullyJack). It's becoming cliche, but once we stoop to there methods, we have become the very thing we are trying to eliminate. America that taps its own citizens isn't America. A murderous Pope isn't the Pope. Torturing people goes against the will of ALL civil nations, and to ignore that groups us with uncivilized nations.
- GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Because we are supposed to be better than they are. We ARE better than they are. Lets stay that way.
- GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@nixfu and Smoov
Since I want my country to be better than theirs and stand to a higher moral and ethical standard, and because I belive that my country is strong enough to win it's battles without becoming a monster... I must be a traitor.
Since you would prefer that we lower ourselves to the lowest levels, you would prefer that we react to the threat of terrorism by terrorizing our enemies and that you feel that the U.S. is too weak too stand in the right, you must be a patriot.
Sure, whatever. - Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I love how it's always "liberal propaganda" when someone exposes Bush's crap. How about a real refutation instead of the classic neocon ad hominem attack?
- GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@Herolint
Some people on digg just cant think I swear.
I know exactly what you said, and my point remains... If the act of putting panties on someones head was not meant to be humiliating, then why did soldiers put panties on someones head and play RHC loudly? Just for ***** and giggles? That would have been a clear Section 8 action I would think... unless it was meant to degrade and humiliate. I don't think the military needs a clearer definition. The definition is that acts that are meant to degrade and humiliate are against the convention. So, if a soldier acts with the intention to degrade and humiliate, then they are acting against the convention (and US law btw). If the soldier dropped a Qua ran on the floor and did not see it before stepping on it, or even better, if the soldier did something else to offend the prisoner like swear to god with no intention to degrade or humiliate the prisoner, then I don't care what the prisoner thought of it. - bastardoperator, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Not defined in the Geneva Conventions. You must be smoking crack.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art3
The guideline is clear. Treat people humanely(section 1). - sh0k, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8@hardline conservatives:
Who would Jesus torture? - gmillerd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"So basically... the ends justify the means?"
This is the perfect dictator situation (this may or may not be one) where the quests of the ends justification is open for many common sense people. And then the issue is not of the means, but when will we see the end?
If you can justify a perpetual engaged war with people forever, you have lost all humanity. Quickly you get into the 1984 like scenario. - jrsims, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Good God! Are you seriously debating whether or not Jesus was conservative or liberal?
What a pointless and childish topic!
BTW, Jesus votes Libertarian. And EckerNet, you're an idiot for fueling this retarded discussion. Grow up. - boner4linux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@And that is exactly why the rest of the world hates us.
"The world" = socialsts.....and they're looking for a *****' excuse... - EckerNet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@dswinscoe
Sure you were with him until he parodied your viewpoint, then he's bad.
And if you think it's such a straw man argument you might want to talk to the several people who have made that exact argument on just this article. I suppose they are all Republican plants though right? That darn sneaky Karl Rove. - spahn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Herolint
Last time I checked, article 3 of the geneva convention bans more than just "torture." Article 3 section 1(c) states that "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment" are prohibited. You may not think someone putting panties on your head is humiliating or an outrage upon personal dignity, but someone coming from a background other than yours might. Maybe you should read the *whole* thing before commenting next time. - dargon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Anything that inflicts pain and/or anguish is considered torture. Here's the dictionary definition from the American Heritage Dictionary
1. a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.
Nothing says you have to leave a mark to torture someone. Whether or not you agree that the form of waterboarding performed by the cia is a form of torture, it can and does leave severe psychological trauma on the subjects, not all of which are actually guilty and are just victims of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
As far as torturing 10 suspects of which only 1 is a real terrorist, some would say thats an acceptable practice as it'll find the bad guy. Before you go making up your mind, be one of the 9 innocent people and tell me it's all fine and dandy. - ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@theblooms and other disinfo artists:
Just because the mass media released "details" about one interrogation being the use of rock music and cold air does not mean that was the limit of tactics used by the US. Somehow the release of a couple of reports describing "torture lite" makes people like you make assumptions which a simple Google search would show as incorrect.
From interviews of NCO's and Officers who staffed FOB "Mercury" in Iraq on the forms of torture used against Iraqi detainees:
The officer and NCOs interviewed by Human Rights Watch say that torture of detainees took place almost daily at FOB Mercury during their entire deployment there, from September 2003 to April 2004. While two of the soldiers also reported abuses at FOB Tiger, near the Syrian border, the most egregious incidents allegedly took place at FOB Mercury. The acts of torture and other cruel or inhuman treatment they described include severe beatings (in one incident, a soldier reportedly broke a detainees leg with a baseball bat), blows and kicks to the face, chest, abdomen, and extremities, and repeated kicks to various parts of the detainees' bodies; the application of chemical substances to exposed skin and eyes; forced stress positions, such as holding heavy water jugs with arms outstretched, sometimes to the point of unconsciousness; sleep deprivation; subjecting detainees to extremes of hot and cold; the stacking of detainees into human pyramids; and the withholding of food (beyond crackers) and water.
from "Leadership Failure: Firsthand Accounts of Torture of Iraqi Detainees by the US Army's 82nd Airborne Division," a report issued by Human Rights Watch on September 25, 2005. The full report is available at hrw.org /reports/2005/us0905.
I have heard, first-hand the former commander of Abu Ghraib describe the full extent of torture at that facility, ordered by military intelligence and the CIA for which NCO's were prosecuted. The commander was very pissed off that people were ordered and encouraged to engage in acts which would be considered "war crimes" and then hung out to dry by the administration. These acts included humiliation, (your human pyramids and panties on the head stuff you think is so funny). Also there were mock executions, beatings, breaking bones, beating prisoners to death, sodomizing prisoners with chem lights and in some cases battery acid, broken bottles and mop handles.
The soldiers who were present said about half of the detainees tortured were found to have no link to insurgents or terrorism and once released:
"The soldiers believed that about half of the detainees at Camp Mercury were released because they were not involved in the insurgency, but they left with the physical and mental scars of torture. "If he's a good guy, you know, now he's a bad guy because of the way we treated him," one sergeant told Human Rights Watch."
You can try to justify this ***** by telling us torturing might stop a terror attack. From my point of view it's more likely to cause one. America is supposed to be the "good guy" - remember? That moral high ground is what made this country great and probably saved us from threats of evil against our way of life in the past. I'm sorry but there is no justification for this, none. If we have to lower ourselves to the same level as the people we claim to fight then we have already lost something much greater than this "war on terror". - Meadow113, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-09-17-american-hands_x.htm
This is an AP article that ran in the papers a couple of days ago here, it shows there have been 34 homicides with detainees in our custody, and 48 deaths from undetermined causes.
It's not about ripping bush, it's about now allowing this kind of action in our name! - NoSuchAgency, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This isn't a very original comment, but I'd like to see the people who diminish the "uncomfortableness" inflicted on detainees try and endure the same treatment. Like most humans, they would probably be screaming and crying after only a few hours with their hands shackled to the ceiling, or a few dunks into the water tank. If they were left tied up in a pile of their own feces for a day or so, they might radically reassess their personal concept of "torture".
- youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@ GeneralFault
It's pretty clear that there are some diggers here and I'm sure a good chunk of Americans as well that are unable to take, let alone see the high moral road.
It's sad really, with all this technology we have created we have come along way and yet humans still have yet to progress forward themselves. - infra172, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Holding terrorists in a cell. Against the Geneva Convention.
Denying a terrorist access to a cell phone with unlimited text messaging. Against the Geneva Convention.
Saying "Hello" to the terrorists. Against the Geneva Convention.
Calling a terrorist a terrorist. Against the Geneva Convention.
Not providing C4 and detonators to the terrorist. Against the Geneva Convention. - grendelboogie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4If only the discourse wouldn't devolve into:
Conservative: "Liberals are weak-willed, appeasing traitors!"
Liberals: "Conservatives are insane, sadistic war criminals!"
But, hey, that's entertainment. - youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So you are saying the incidents at Guantanamo Bay didn't happen?
Are you so naive that you only believe what your government tells you?
Way to answer the question though, you must have went to the same school as Bush. - Jones1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"it is about ripping into bush, republicans..."
Right. They deserve it, being pathological liars and psychotic killers. That will be forever. They have forfeited their right to exist
"...and promoting democrats " No. that's just hiding behind women's skirts by the bush re-pubes. The dems don't deserve promoting because they haven't stood up for anything except the jews. - EckerNet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You forgot giving them control of the thermostat
-
Show 51 - 100 of 149 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is