Claims of torture in Guantanamo Bay

[jfields 0]

And from the coherency of your post, you should be glad Kevin is in favor of legalizing, because it would let you afford more of what you've already been taking.

[juanesky 0]

Well does not surprise me that you also have attention spans. What part of I do not like drugs you don't understand?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[JDBoston 0]

Predictably, I think, this thread has degenerated and turned into a bunch of unfocused partisan namecalling. There are really a couple of distinct issues here:

1) Should the US be able to hold large numbers of people as neither POWs nor citizens, and instead make up ad hoc definitions of what we can do to them, and make it all very secretive and not charge any of them with anything but just hold onto them for a couple years?

My opinion: No. Shit or get off the pot. There is NO excuse for holding people indefinitely w/o trial, unless they're clearly notorious and guilty like that guy Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Make it clear what they're in there for (i.e. charge them in a court, military or civilian), and let them go if it's a bunch of BS and we're just too lazy or incompetent or overburdened to get around to closing their files while they sit there and rot.

2) ASSUMING they ARE reliably determined to be involved/complicit in terrorism, Al Qaeda, whatever - should we be allowed to torture them to get info out of them?

My opinion: Yes. Doesn't need to be Inquisition-style thumbscrew, alligator clips on their nuts kind of torture, but it's amazing how easily most people break with enough sleeplessness and unpredictability. That's unkind treatment, sure, but it doesn't strike me as uncivilized or over the top if you're sure they have info that can save lives. There was actually an article in Harper's on it recently, I think. One interesting point the article made is that sheer physical pain is often the least effective method, because as soon as the captive realizes it isn't as bad as they'd imagined, their resolve and confidence strengthen.

I admire the force of conviction in people who are blanket anti-torture (strict definition), but I wonder if they would feel the same way if their beliefs were actually put into practice by the police forces responsible for protecting their communities. Anyone who thinks policemen (and women) don't occasionally have to use threats of violence, cause physical and emotional discomfort, lie, and so on in order to trip suspects up and get info out of them is not living in the real world. It sucks if they apply those things to the wrong person, but they're not perfect and I certainly wouldn't want to do their job so I'm glad they do.

I think the second question is a bit more interesting, if only because the first one seems so clear-cut to me.

Did I miss anything? I know I'm not calling anyone any names yet, just give me some time once people start disagreeing with me ; )

My $0.02,

Joe

[juanesky 0]

Well put JD.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[billvon 2,470]

>No. Shit or get off the pot.

Definitely.

>(torture) My opinion: Yes.

I would agree IF it was strictly defined along the lines you mention. Captives have a right to humane treatment, but that doesn't necessarily include getting enough sleep, or being treated kindly. The minimum I would expect from a foreign country holding US servicemen is that they do not beat, injure, starve, freeze, sicken etc. their captives - and I would apply the same standards here. Do unto others and all that.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Predictably, I think, this thread has degenerated and turned into a bunch of unfocused partisan namecalling. There are really a couple of distinct issues here:

1) Should the US be able to hold large numbers of people as neither POWs nor citizens, and instead make up ad hoc definitions of what we can do to them, and make it all very secretive and not charge any of them with anything but just hold onto them for a couple years?

My opinion: No. Shit or get off the pot. There is NO excuse for holding people indefinitely w/o trial, unless they're clearly notorious and guilty like that guy Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Make it clear what they're in there for (i.e. charge them in a court, military or civilian), and let them go if it's a bunch of BS and we're just too lazy or incompetent or overburdened to get around to closing their files while they sit there and rot.

2) ASSUMING they ARE reliably determined to be involved/complicit in terrorism, Al Qaeda, whatever - should we be allowed to torture them to get info out of them?

My opinion: Yes. Doesn't need to be Inquisition-style thumbscrew, alligator clips on their nuts kind of torture, but it's amazing how easily most people break with enough sleeplessness and unpredictability. That's unkind treatment, sure, but it doesn't strike me as uncivilized or over the top if you're sure they have info that can save lives. There was actually an article in Harper's on it recently, I think. One interesting point the article made is that sheer physical pain is often the least effective method, because as soon as the captive realizes it isn't as bad as they'd imagined, their resolve and confidence strengthen.

I admire the force of conviction in people who are blanket anti-torture (strict definition), but I wonder if they would feel the same way if their beliefs were actually put into practice by the police forces responsible for protecting their communities. Anyone who thinks policemen (and women) don't occasionally have to use threats of violence, cause physical and emotional discomfort, lie, and so on in order to trip suspects up and get info out of them is not living in the real world. It sucks if they apply those things to the wrong person, but they're not perfect and I certainly wouldn't want to do their job so I'm glad they do.

I think the second question is a bit more interesting, if only because the first one seems so clear-cut to me.

Did I miss anything? I know I'm not calling anyone any names yet, just give me some time once people start disagreeing with me ; )

My $0.02,

Joe

1) Subjectively - we don't have the need to know every minute detail that the gov't uses for nation security.

2) Hell yeah, and i want in on it! Oh, ummm, I mean, yes, that would be ok, under strict guidelines.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

You cry about someone slandering you, but then you profess to everyone here, you like dope, you smoke dope and are pro dope

Find one instance of that anywhere. Go ahead. I have said that I don't like drug laws and think they are harmful to society. Once again, your wine soaked brain apparently misinterpreting simple statements.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Well does not surprise me that you also have attention spans. What part of I do not like drugs you don't understand?

I wouldn't take that, Justing. You have an attentioni spans. If I'm a druggie, why are you the one rambling and incoherent?

If being a druggie makes me who I am, and abstaining makes you who you are, then I need to go find somewhere to score some dope, and quick.

[juanesky 0]

Don't forget your diapers...

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[billvon 2,470]

>Don't forget your diapers...

Enough.

[turtlespeed 212]

Lighten up a littel Juanesky....

You too Kev, gheeze. Why take it so personal?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

You too Kev, gheeze. Why take it so personal?

Because I'm continuously slandered by this guy accusing me of being a drug addict just because I favor drug law reformation. Not only in this thread, but everyone where he disagrees with me he resorts to baseless accusations. I'm not really taking it personally, but if he's going to dish it out, he'd better be prepared to take it. It's not like I've brought up all the times he talked about liking to wear women's panties.

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Quote

You cry about someone slandering you, but then you profess to everyone here, you like dope, you smoke dope and are pro dope

Find one instance of that anywhere. Go ahead. I have said that I don't like drug laws and think they are harmful to society. Once again, your wine soaked brain apparently misinterpreting simple statements.

Which one, when you cry like a baby, when someone calls on your character?, if so clicky (where you want to hook up good pot) and this one in which you imply that pot smoking has ever induced a death. Do you have a hidden agenda? there are many more like these if you'd like



Or the part where you are the one that needs alcohol to meet women and enjoy yourself? Clicky and clicky


There has been instances when I have told you right in hear that I do not agree with drug use for recreational purposes, I do make direct statements, not like you that goes about it hiding, what is your intention of being pro pot? If you don't say it, then you like it, promote it, pretend is safe, and most likely smoke it. Don't come crying that this is slander to you. Grow up and be a man.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

But seriously, I've posted maybe five Onion articles here. Two were taken seriously.

it seems both side are guilty about that
sometimes a troll is just a troll

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

if so clicky (where you want to hook up good pot)

Let's see...that was sarcasm directed at you because of your baseless accusations against me in that thread.

Quote

this one in which you imply that pot smoking has ever induced a death.

And I stand by that, but no where did I say anything about using it myself.

Quote

Do you have a hidden agenda?

No, my agenda is that I think the drug laws in this country are ridiculous and oppressive and harming society.

Quote

Or the part where you are the one that needs alcohol to meet women and enjoy yourself?

Jealous?

Quote

There has been instances when I have told you right in hear that I do not agree with drug use for recreational purposes, I do make direct statements, not like you that goes about it hiding, what is your intention of being pro pot? If you don't say it, then you like it, promote it, pretend is safe, and most likely smoke it. Don't come crying that this is slander to you.

Direct statement for you:

I think it should be legal. All the other assumptions that you are making from that direct statement are your own personal delusions.

Quote

Grow up and be a man

Please define that for me. Is it the inability to understand the written word being a man. Or is it making incomprehensible posts? Maybe its where you resort to ad hominem attacks when you're incapable of defending your position in a conversation with others who are stating opinions about issues instead of attacking the character of those they are conversing with. Which one of those things makes you a man?

[juanesky 0]

Well, they are not bareless, you want to make it legal (for opression against who?), you profess they have never killed anyone (referring to pot).

You asked for instances, and when caught you don't say things straight, but more excuses, keep insiting that you need alcohol to enhance your own capabilities, with women, and no, no jealousy with strippers there pal.

So how can you admit you really are pro pot, like pot and seek it to be legal for your own consumption? What question will enlicit for you to be forthcoming with a simple answer to a simple question?

Pot or not?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[goose491 0]

Hehe, the post was deleted by billvon before I could finish this reply!:




Juan, seriously guy... what is on your agenda?.. why don't you lay off Philly and focus on the actual, factual thread... before you get the f*cking thing locked!

He's called you on some shit and you can't back it up... that's your cue.


Anyway,

I'm with JDboston... very well put Joe, especially where you wonder about how people might think differently about torture if it's their loved ones at risk. Well, I'm positive I would see things differently if torturing some towelhead could save my sister, brother, best friend or whatnot... but does it change the moral implications of torture itself?

I stand behind everything you state about approved interogation techniques... but am willing to bet there are many people just getting plain ol' knocked around at camp x-ray.

Has anyone given any good reason as to why they're being held in a camp in Cuba?

Can anyone give any good reason as to why they're being held in a camp in Cuba?

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Well, they are not bareless

huh?

Quote

you want to make it legal (for opression against who?),

oppressive = Exercising power arbitrarily and often unjustly; tyrannical.

The fact that possession of a substance that grows naturally in the ground frequently carries a stiffer penalty that rape, assault, child molestation, etc. is oppressive.

Quote

You asked for instances, and when caught you don't say things straight, but more excuses,

I asked for one instance of me stating that I use drugs, and you failed to find one.

Quote

keep insiting that you need alcohol to enhance your own capabilities, with women,

Never did that either. I like women, I like to drink, I like to dring with women. So what. Where did I insist that I need alcohol or need enhancement, you're completely delusional.

Quote

So how can you admit you really are pro pot, like pot and seek it to be legal for your own consumption?

I never did....what are you talking about? Or are you asking how you can get me to admit something. There's that inability to communicate again, do you even read what you wrote? I don't know how you can get me to admit to something that isn't true. I guess you can keep making accusations, that's what you've been trying so far.

Quote

What question will enlicit for you to be forthcoming with a simple answer to a simple question?

Can you translate to english? What the hell is enlicit?

Quote

Pot or not?

That's your simple question? What exactly are you asking?

Do I think it should be legal? Yes.

Do I want it to be legal so that I can smoke it? No.

That clear enough for you, swifty?

[billvon 2,470]

>Can anyone give any good reason as to why they're being held in a camp in Cuba?

Because it is easier to make the claim that constitutional protections do not apply to people in Cuba, rather than claiming they do not apply to people in Georgia.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

>Can anyone give any good reason as to why they're being held in a camp in Cuba?

Because it is easier to make the claim that constitutional protections do not apply to people in Cuba, rather than claiming they do not apply to people in Georgia.

I'm of the opinion that they might not last very long in the states. Have you seen an LA riot? When they were first put in "Gitmo" there was a big fear for their welfare, they just haven't used up time and resorces trying to figure out what to do next.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[PhillyKev 0]

FYI... in the WSJ today, small blurb on the front that Blair has demanded that Bush either decide the fate of the 8 UK citizens being held or release them to Britain to stand trial.

[turtlespeed 212]

Excellant.

Really.

No, really, I DO think that is good.

Aw comon, I really do.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,470]

>I'm of the opinion that they might not last very long in the states.

I don't think they'd last very long in, say, Folsom prison, but on a military base the issue isn't as serious. Military bases generally have better security than prisons.

[Zlew 0]

<>

Yea bill, that's why they aren't keeping them in Afganistan at one of the many prisons we have there. You know, Afganistan is pretty much the same as Georga now , so the only place for us to send them is Cuba so you guys won't freak out... So the army sat and thought about the best place to abuse these guys.....bases all over the world...bases and prisons in country's where nobody can see what's going on (like afganistan) and places where we don't ahve to fly them, ship them or otherwise move them.... But i think you are right bill, I think they picked Cuba cuz it's better than Georga and people might use the constitutional argument against us in afgainistan, germany, Uzbeckestan, yemen........

Think maybe there are other reasons? Maybe haveing to do with geting info from people and breaking spirit? Hard to find good reasons to stay with the taliban and stay loyal when you go from never seeing anything but rocks in afganistan, and wake up in a tropical island half way around the world. Where are you going to escape to? Who is going to come and liberate you?
Naw....
I think Bill's right.
it's all about being able to abuse them the best way we can and not have anybody bug us about it.

[billvon 2,470]

>You know, Afganistan is pretty much the same as Georga now

??

> So the army sat and thought about the best place to abuse these guys . . .

I doubt it. I think the military thought about what the best place to keep them with the minimum amount of trouble would be. A place that was far away from the prisoner's homes to demoralize them and avoid suicide bombers outside the prison. A place where lawyers could not get easy access to prisoners, and where legal tricks are a lot harder to carry out. A place where photographers could not stake out the best camera angles and put shots of the prison on the front pages of papers - at least, not as often as if were in Atlanta.

>it's all about being able to abuse them the best way we can and not
>have anybody bug us about it.

Oh, come off it.