[Big Mac]

In yesterday's press conference, President Obama claimed that even during the worst attacks by the Germans against London during WWII, Churchill insisted that Britain would not torture. However, various news sources state that Obama's account was entirely false - that the British used the same types of harsh interrogation techniques on German spies captured during the war. Here's a Fox News article on the subject. Which version of history is accurate?

Aside from that, I believe that Obama's basis for outlawing the techniques is completely wrongheaded. I don't think that he should ban HIT (Harsh Interrogation Techniques) based on the speculation that perhaps the same information could have been procured using other methods. The record clearly shows that HIT worked where less intensive techniques failed, unless a whole slew of CIA and military officials (as well as official documents) are false. I also believe that the left-wing assertion that HIT encourage the enemy to torture Americans is absolutely specious. They tortured and killed Americans before we employed those techniques.

My apologies if this thread encroaches on the existing water boarding thread.

[Chuckit]

Geez, a politician versus Fox News. It's really hard to tell whom to distrust more — they both seem like such good candidates.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

My apologies if this thread encroaches on the existing water boarding thread.

I, for one, do not accept your apology, because HIT is a way awsomer TLA than the one I came up with for the mad science thread (IGT).

On topic, I don't believe anyone who is putting forth the idea we had clean hands until Bush and Cheney took over. One would presume the speech was meant to imply we didn't torture people in WWII either. Suuuure.

On the other hand (though I didn't hear or read the speech), Obama likely chose his words carefully. Churchill was the one who was lying, Obama is repeating a quote.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

i, for one, do not accept your apology, because hit is a way awsomer tla than the one i came up with for the mad science thread (igt).

wtf?

[ghporter]

Somehow, I find that there's a qualitative difference between captured combatants (even though I don't consider most of those held by the U.S. true "POWs") and "spies." Considering that international law seems to have no problem with summarily executing spies, I would think harsh interrogations would be much "gentler" than just shooting these guys.

There is no evidence that I can find of the Brits torturing (or even harshly interrogating) POWs in WWII. Since so many people think of the combatants held by the U.S. as POWs, I think there's a real "apples to apples" problem in bringing this up.

[Moderator]

If you support torture then you support our adversaries torturing our troops its as simple as that.

[subego]

So if our adversaries torture us first, we can torture them back?

[pulls out the marine battery and jumper cables]

Hey! He started it!

[amazing]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6201743.ece

Answer: no

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Geez, a politician versus Fox News. It's really hard to tell whom to distrust more — they both seem like such good candidates.

Some people like to poke fun at Fox News, but I seldom hear a valid reason why. I'm not quoting a commentator like Beck, O'Reilly or Hannity on this. They've probably pointed it out too, but I'm talking about the Brett Baier's Special Report.

Originally Posted by subego 

I, for one, do not accept your apology, because HIT is a way awsomer TLA than the one I came up with for the mad science thread (IGT).

Yeah, I thought about it and was surprised that I had not heard anyone else use HIT before, so I get to take credit for thinking it up on my own.

[ort888]

Have fun defending torture guys.

[subego]

Is it really this black and white?

I've said in other threads that torture (probably including waterboarding) should be illegal. So, I'm not going to defend it in that sense.

But all these people who are 100% sure that it "doesn't work" baffle me as well.

When one is more insistent about something than Richard Dawkins is insistent about god, that throws up a red flag to me.


Edit: you may not be guilty of this, and if that's the case, I apologize, but that's going to be the feeling I get from a five word statement which isn't directed at anybody specific.

Edit 2: with "it 'doesn't work'", by "it" I mean waterboarding and other techniques.

[Shaddim]

Anyone who thinks the Allies didn't use torture in WWII is delusional (or stupid).

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Anyone who thinks the Allies didn't use torture in WWII is delusional (or stupid).

I assume you mean all of the Allies, not just the Soviets, and would agree with your assertion.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

wtf?

IMO. Yeah... took me awhile there, didn't it?

[turtle777]

I can't stand the f***ing hypocrisy that the Democrats and Obama are displaying.

First, they claim all those techniques were illegal, and they didn't know about it.
Both claims are false. High ranking Democrats have been briefed in detail about what's been going on after 9/11. They knew it, and there are documents to show this. Moreover, they didn't object to it.
Unfortunately, our oh so bipartisan president does not bother to release those documents. I wonder why

Secondly, now that the Democrats have a more or less filibuster proof majority, why don't they bring forth legislation that explicitly forbids these interrogation techniques ?

Originally Posted by WSJ

And if after all this, members of Congress still insist that waterboarding is a war crime, maybe they could explain to the American people why they don't just go ahead and outlaw it.

The WSJ has it right in response to the "Truth Commmission" that Democrats called for:

Originally Posted by WSJ

In other words, what the Beltway has planned is a circus -- where the decks are stacked, people are smeared, and conclusions are foregone.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124087403668161211.html

Could it be that this is not about what actually happened, but just one more scheme to discredit the Bush Administration.

-t

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Could it be that this is not about what actually happened, but just one more scheme to discredit the Bush Administration.

-t

LOL! There is no need for ANY schemes to discredit the Bush administartion. They do fine all by themselves. Ha Ha Ha!!!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

LOL! There is no need for ANY schemes to discredit the Bush administartion. They do fine all by themselves. Ha Ha Ha!!!

Mike, Mike, stumbling, as always.

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Moderator 

If you support torture then you support our adversaries torturing our troops its as simple as that.

... and yet you'd allow someone to boil a perp's face in oil to protect your own child. Trust me.

If not, you're much crazier than those who support current interrogation policy. Period.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

First, they claim all those techniques were illegal, and they didn't know about it.
Both claims are false. High ranking Democrats have been briefed in detail about what's been going on after 9/11. They knew it, and there are documents to show this. Moreover, they didn't object to it.
Unfortunately, our oh so bipartisan president does not bother to release those documents. I wonder why

I agree. This stuff is not only irritating as hell, it's getting downright insulting.

Secondly, now that the Democrats have a more or less filibuster proof majority, why don't they bring forth legislation that explicitly forbids these interrogation techniques ?

Because they're aware of the numerous threats that exist against our country. Whether or not restrictions on current policy could be directly linked to an attack on this country, they would be viewed as such and anyone championing these restrictions would lose their seat.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... and yet you'd allow someone to boil a perp's face in oil to protect your own child. Trust me.

If not, you're much crazier than those who support current interrogation policy. Period.

Wow! What a pleasant thought for a Sunday morning..Just get back from church?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Wow! What a pleasant thought for a Sunday morning..Just get back from church?

No. Getting ready to go to church as a matter of fact.

If there's one thing I've learned about liberals when it comes to "peace" and "justice"; they'll wholesale abandon any such silly notions when an issue gets in their own way. I'm just being honest about it. If my family and/or my children were in harm's way (let alone my entire neighborhood, city, State) and someone had information, I would most certainly approve harsh techniques to get the information if necessary.

I certainly would not pretend it's somehow more humane to send them into another country with no restrictions and torture them there.

[stumblinmike]

Two words: anger management

[ctt1wbw]

Who cares if water boarding is torture? I for one say it isn't. If you live, and/or come out of the session without scars or marks, then it isn't torture. I know that's extreme and all, but we are dealing with people that would rather kill you than have dinner with you.

[turtle777]

What the Democracks don't understand is that those "enemy combatants" (or whatever euphemistic name they have been given by Obummer) are NOT reasonable.

Well, it's kind of like the Democracks themselves.

-t

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

On the other hand (though I didn't hear or read the speech), Obama's teleprompter likely chose his words carefully. Churchill was the one who was lying, Obama is repeating a quote.

Wink.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

...Democracks...Obummer...Democracks
-t

[kobi]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

What the Democracks don't understand is that those "enemy combatants" (or whatever euphemistic name they have been given by Obummer) are NOT reasonable.

Well, it's kind of like the Democracks themselves.

-t

From Wikipedia-

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks the United States Congress passed a resolution known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) on September 18, 2001[4], wherein the Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution. Using this authorization granted to him by Congress, on November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism"[5]. The administration chose to call those who it detained under the Presidential Military Orders "enemy combatants". Since then, the administration has formalized its usage of the term by using it specifically for detained alleged members and supporters of al-Qaida or the Taliban.

Sorry but your way off, as always.

Your glorious leader Bush is the one that created the legal gray area of "enemy combatant" to skirt the fact that the US was breaking the Geneva Conventions treaty and the law by torturing these "enemy combatants" in Cuba and other rendition sites around the world.

So I guess it's reasonable in your mind to torture these "enemy combatant's"? What did we get from these answers.......nothing. No plots were foiled, nothing good came from it. Well I take that back, there was good from it, the GOP lost and has become a splinter party as an effect of Bush presidency. That was a very good thing.

[turtle777]

Call it whatever you want, but they are not POWs, so there will apply different rules.

-t

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Call it whatever you want, but they are not POWs, so there will apply different rules.

-t

In response to the attacks of September 11th did the President not declare war on the "enemies of freedom"? Did the Congress not authroise the use of military force to wage war on those who attacked us on September 11th? Were we not engaged in the War on Terror when individuals who are now in Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp were captured?

If we were engaged in war then they are Prisoners of War.

[Shaddim]

Hmmm... I guess I missed where the government formally declared war. Oh, it must be because that hasn't happened since June of 1942.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

In response to the attacks of September 11th did the President not declare war on the "enemies of freedom"? Did the Congress not authroise the use of military force to wage war on those who attacked us on September 11th? Were we not engaged in the War on Terror when individuals who are now in Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp were captured?

If we were engaged in war then they are Prisoners of War.

The Geneva Conventions would say otherwise. These Islamic terrorists are not a uniformed military. There is a difference between what the Geneva Conventions says is a POW and what is not a POW.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

If we were engaged in war then they are Prisoners of War.

Uhm, yeah, no.

Originally Posted by Wiki

Qualifications [POW]
To be entitled to prisoner-of-war status, captured service members must be lawful combatants entitled to combatant's privilege—which gives them immunity from punishment for crimes constituting lawful acts of war, e.g., killing enemy troops. To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly. Thus, uniforms and/or badges are important in determining prisoner-of-war status; and francs-tireurs, "terrorists", saboteurs, mercenaries and spies do not qualify.

See, I can look past the fact that most forum members here are not aware of those "details".

But you would expect of the Democrats to work within the confines of official definitions issued by the Geneva Conventions.

-t

[ctt1wbw]

You know, I get so ****ing sick and tired, and tired and sick, of people's hatred of President Bush clouding their brains and eroding all use of it. Get over it.

I've never seen such hatred to a person. I bet most Americans hate Bush more than they hate Osama Bin Laden.

[ghporter]

I've attempted to use the formal definitions of "POW" and "unlawful combatant" from both Geneva and Hague conventions several times in the past. Apparently these authoritative definitions fail to sway people who "just know they're right."

BY INTERNATIONAL LAW, to qualify for protections AS A PRISONER OF WAR under the Geneva conventions, a combatant must meet the qualifications listed in the wiki article quoted above by turtle 777. I do not think ANY of the combatants captured in either Afghanistan or Iraq (other than the uniformed Iraqi military) qualify. Thus, by international law, there was no requirement to treat these detainees as POWs.

Combatants that do not qualify as POWs fall into two categories: lawful combatants and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants could be civilians acting to defend their farms. Unlawful combatants could be anyone-as long as they are acting in contravention of the internationally recognized Law of War. Hiding behind unarmed civilians, firing on one's enemy from within a hospital, place of worship, or historical or cultural site or monument, many others, fall into that category. Which it just so happens is the way a huge number of insurgents have behaved.

There are a LOT of things one must do for POWs, such as providing shelter, food, protection from attack, and even providing tobacco (YES that's actually in the treaty!). The treaties say very little about how one must treat a lawful, non-POW combatant. They are nearly silent on the required treatment of unlawful combatants.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

I bet most Americans hate Bush more than they hate Osama Bin Laden.

There must be a reason.....

[ctt1wbw]

Surely there must be some reasons. It can't be because of the DOW's horrible run to 14,200 or so, which is 6000 more than it is right now... Or the fact that oil went down from 150 to just around 33 or so before the innaguartion... Or the fact that a ruthless dictator (Hussein, Saddam) was dethroned... I can't think of many clear reasons why most people hate him. I have come to the conclusion that most people want to be given stuff for nothing, which is what the Democrats run on, so they voted for Hussein, Barrack.

Most people blame Bush for the Dow and the price of oil, forgetting that he got the Dow high and oil low... go figure.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Who cares if water boarding is torture? I for one say it isn't. If you live, and/or come out of the session without scars or marks, then it isn't torture.

OK, so locking somebody in a room and raping them repeatedly for weeks on end is not torture?

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Surely there must be some reasons. It can't be because of the DOW's horrible run to 14,200 or so, which is 6000 more than it is right now... Or the fact that oil went down from 150 to just around 33 or so before the innaguartion... Or the fact that a ruthless dictator (Hussein, Saddam) was dethroned... I can't think of many clear reasons why most people hate him. I have come to the conclusion that most people want to be given stuff for nothing, which is what the Democrats run on, so they voted for Hussein, Barrack.

Most people blame Bush for the Dow and the price of oil, forgetting that he got the Dow high and oil low... go figure.

Wow. And the Republicans want to change their brand? You sir, are the new Michael Steele. Let Rush know you're "out there". Best of luck!

[ebuddy]

Two words: dumb management.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

OK, so locking somebody in a room and raping them repeatedly for weeks on end is not torture?

So... forcibly raping someone repeatedly for weeks on end would not produce scars or marks?

[ctt1wbw]

Rape? Weeks on end? What goes on in the privacy of one's own bedroom should not be discussed here.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... forcibly raping someone repeatedly for weeks on end would not produce scars or marks?

Not necessarily, especially in certain circumstances, and given time for the marks that were made to heal. Prosecuting rape is often tricky because so few people have enough of a grasp of the anatomy of female genitalia that they can't figure out how a "violent attack" didn't cause the kind of damage that they expect.

That tissue is specifically adapted to stretch and comply, not like the tissue of most of the rest of the body. Further, the autonomic nervous system has a strong amount of control over how reproductive tissues react, so rape can and usually does result in at least adequate lubrication.

What most people fail to grasp is that, more than anything else, rape is a psychological crime. The victim's emotional and psychological health is far more damaged than her body is.

[OreoCookie]

Glenn is right: to restrict torture to something that leaves physical damage is incorrect. Scientists found out that the vagina produces lubricants even if there woman is not aroused at all (to prevent damage, I assume). In case of rape, even if the person (usually a woman) sustains physical injuries (which are, if present, usually small), they're nothing compared to the emotional scars.

Ditto for other forms of torture: the physical effect is really secondary. The goal of torture is to break the mind, not the body. Damaging the body of the victim is just a mean to break the spirit and the mind. I'd lose a finger or an arm than my mind.

[ebuddy]

I wasn't aware that someone could be raped repeatedly for weeks on end and not leave a mark. I'm skeptical. Two things;
- The incidents mentioned by Glenn were not repeated rapes for weeks on end. Yes, the anatomy is a wondrous thing, but repeated forcible sexual penetration for weeks on end is gonna leave a mark on somebody.
- Unless I've missed something, we're not talking about a case where someone was actually repeatedly raped for weeks on end. I thought it was presented by Chuckit as an absurd hypothetical and one that most likely does not even meet the criteria presented by the poster he was countering.

I've not given the "it must leave a mark or sign of physical harm" argument for torture anyway. I was just challenging the absurd hypothetical. What I've argued is that if I were a betting guy, I'd throw down all I've got that anyone and everyone in this forum would authorize the use of harsh interrogation techniques up to and including water boarding, without hesitation; to save just one of their own children. Let alone their entire neighborhood, their city, or State.

[ghporter]

Technically the "pleasure women" the Imperial Japanese kept enslaved for years and years were raped, repeatedly and over a very long period of time, both technically and in the more common sense according to much of what I've read. Many went on to be successful mothers because, though they were abused, their genitals were not significantly damaged. If being enslaved and forced into sex with the soldiers that potentially had killed your family is not torture, then I do not know what is.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What I've argued is that if I were a betting guy, I'd throw down all I've got that anyone and everyone in this forum would authorize the use of harsh interrogation techniques up to and including water boarding, without hesitation; to save just one of their own children. Let alone their entire neighborhood, their city, or State.

Sure, and a lot of people would shoot someone in the head for the same reason, but that still doesn't mean we should throw away the whole justice system and start murdering people if we think they might have done something wrong. I don't see how your observation that people can be horrible to each other has any bearing on the discussion, no matter how many times you repeat it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

So I guess we've established that UN "peacekeepers" often use torture- and on women and children they're supposed to protect, let alone enemy combatants. Where are all the torture investigations against the UN?

[hyteckit]

So because they are "enemy combatants", it's okay to rape and torture them? So who gives a f*ck about human rights now. We are only Americans.

I can't believe so many conservatives are defending torture, especially those religious church going ones.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Classic!
So rather than answer the question, about something that's REAL- the UN actually being guilty of raping innocent women and children (IE torturing them, as if another label mattered, but since we're pretending it does)- you try and continue a silly hypothetical strawman argument.

I'll ask again- where are all the investigations of the UN for torture?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What I've argued is that if I were a betting guy, I'd throw down all I've got that anyone and everyone in this forum would authorize the use of harsh interrogation techniques up to and including water boarding, without hesitation; to save just one of their own children. Let alone their entire neighborhood, their city, or State.

You'd lose that bet.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Sure, and a lot of people would shoot someone in the head for the same reason, but that still doesn't mean we should throw away the whole justice system and start murdering people if we think they might have done something wrong.

Why can't people discuss this without getting all hyperbolic. We're not talking about rampant murdering or throwing away the whole justice system. No one said any of these things. Why can't we separate discussion of a useful tool used sparingly and effectively with the potential to save hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people from discussion on rampant rape, murder, and the complete abandonment of the justice system???

I suppose the "good ol' days" are when we send them into Saudi Arabia or somewhere else to be "tortured"? You think we're harsher than they? I'm skeptical.

I don't see how your observation that people can be horrible to each other has any bearing on the discussion, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Well then you're not really paying attention to anyone's observations here as much as just waiting to say something else entirely irrelevant.