Pentagon revises Guantanamo detainee policy

mere pranks?

"First, I call BS on all this torture. When we get some substatiated accounts, I'll have a problem with it. Titties on my head, scary dogs, uncomfy rooms."

***Uh, where do you get the idea the detainees only got a few frat house pranks? Things like being hung up by arms behind them until breathing is supressed (like crucifiction without a cross), legs being beaten to a pulp while hung up (in a prison in Afghanistan), milder things like waterboarding, sleep deprivation, normal beating, ruptured intestines, you get the idea. What about the guy who went to AbuGhraib to inquire about his arrested son and ended up dead, with massive bruises all over and numerous broken bones? The Iraqi general beaten then stuffed into a sleeping bag and sat on until dead? A report in the British medical publication the Lancet a year ago or so documented a bunch of such cases, along with evidence that doctors helped in both interrogations and in cover-ups of deaths under torture.

I wish I could remember all the names and websites right off, but you'll have to do your own searches. Google Taguba report for starters. Just stay off Fox News and quit believing everything Rush says;)

In this day and age, armies in proper uniform don't line up on opposite sides of a field and fight fair, so obviously we need to come up with new rules for the treatment of what are called "unlawful combatants", unless we really want to be as bad as they are regarding inhumane treatment of prisoners.

While it would be nice if the people of Iraq and Afghanistan would just give up and accept rule by US approved governments, this doesn't seem to be happening. Perhaps a bit of empathy (not sympathy) is in order. Imagine America was a virtually defenceless country: you can bet I'd fight them if the Chinese decided to take over our government, disband our military, set up permanent bases, occupy my country and kick in my door, even if I didn't have a uniform! Then I'd be called an insurgent and be dead or worse.
 
Last edited:
Big difference in your Red Dawn scenario: they would not be deposing a tyrannical dictator.

Bad things have been done, I will not argue that. But under saddam, the tourture was worse and far more wide-spread.

Have you heard anything from Afghanistan lately? The Taliban that controled two thirds of the country were not the recognized government and their power was taken by force. The Afghanis are happy to be rid of bad rubish. The Iraqis voted in numbers that our country has never seen. Sounds like they were ready to flex their democratic rights first chance they got.

The insurgents or whatever you want to call them are the minority. The vast majority are happy saddam is gone-not neccesarily happy we are there, but they understand the lesser of two evils concept. We will win this war when we hand over control to the Iraqi government and their military. Then the insurgents will have no one to kill but fellow arabs and that will accomplish nothing but angering the masses. That makes Iraq a farily untennable place for terrorists, don't you think?
 
rh,
Now we're on the same page.
We've got to do what's necessary to make that happen. If that means publicly disavowing torture, then so be it.
 
And we have publicly decried the use of tourture. In a group as large as our military presence in Iraq, you are going to have more than a few bad apples. Is it unfourtunate? Yes. Is it avoidable? No. Should violaters get a Leavenworth Leave? Heck yes.

You have to take the good with the bad. Don't color all of our servicemen and women as well as their efforts because of the misdeeds of the few.
 
The problems we are having with the detainees are one of the things that the Geneva Conventions are intended to prevent. If you have a fighting force that operates by disguising themselves as, and hiding among, civilians, they put the civilians at risk. That's why the primary requirement to be afforded the protections of the Geneva Convention is to be an openly declared combatant. Not for the combatants protection or to make it easier to kill them but for the non-combatants protection.

Violating those precepts loses you the protections of the Convention. If captured then, your are NOT a POW, but an unlawful combatant and can be executed.

Are we going to torture them? No. Will we question them beyond name, rank, serial number and date of birth? Yes.
 
Boy, wouldn't it be a shame if the prisoners at gitmo got loose and all got "killed while attempting escape".

Yeah what a shame that would be :D
 
***Uh, where do you get the idea the detainees only got a few frat house pranks? Things like being hung up by arms behind them until breathing is supressed (like crucifiction without a cross), legs being beaten to a pulp while hung up (in a prison in Afghanistan), milder things like waterboarding, sleep deprivation, normal beating, ruptured intestines, you get the idea. What about the guy who went to AbuGhraib to inquire about his arrested son and ended up dead, with massive bruises all over and numerous broken bones? The Iraqi general beaten then stuffed into a sleeping bag and sat on until dead? A report in the British medical publication the Lancet a year ago or so documented a bunch of such cases, along with evidence that doctors helped in both interrogations and in cover-ups of deaths under torture.
Click to expand...
Wow. You're going to want to make sure you understand the difference between prisoner abuse and torture before you begin this discussion.

In this day and age, armies in proper uniform don't line up on opposite sides of a field and fight fair, so obviously we need to come up with new rules for the treatment of what are called "unlawful combatants", unless we really want to be as bad as they are regarding inhumane treatment of prisoners.
Click to expand...
"Fair" is covered in the Geneva convention, and it certainly isn't limited to marching into battle to fire by ranks. So explain the need for rule changes.

Imagine America was a virtually defenceless country: you can bet I'd fight them if the Chinese decided to take over our government, disband our military, set up permanent bases, occupy my country and kick in my door, even if I didn't have a uniform! Then I'd be called an insurgent and be dead or worse.
Click to expand...
I could imagine that. Or I can imagine what would actually be an analogous situation. The Chinese invade our third world dictatorship, depose our mass murdering, sadistic, uncaring dictator, disband our lawless, murdering, raping military, set up permanent bases, temporarily occupy areas until a restructured government, military, and police force can assume control, with the express intent of leaving America a sovereign nation at the earliest convienience. That's realistic, and I wouldn't be so eager to fight. In your unrealistic scenario, I would be more than willing to fight, and I wouldn't whine around about being classified as an illegal combatant when I clearly was.
 
And we have publicly decried the use of tourture. In a group as large as our military presence in Iraq, you are going to have more than a few bad apples. Is it unfourtunate? Yes. Is it avoidable? No. Should violaters get a Leavenworth Leave? Heck yes.
Click to expand...

I'm in agreement with you on this, but we're talking about the official American policy of grabbing people off the streets without charges, making them disappear into a network of secret prisons, denying them a chance to plead their case, and doing things to them that we promised not to do.

This policy becomes fuel for enemy propaganda, and really does not have any benefits for us.
We're better off without it.

You have to take the good with the bad. Don't color all of our servicemen and women as well as their efforts because of the misdeeds of the few.
Click to expand...

I don't. But the average law-abiding guy on the street in Baghdad who's trying to figure out which side is worse....he does. That's why it's so important to mercilessly punish such behavior as publicly as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top