[Cody Dawg]

New York - TIME has obtained the first documented look inside the highly classified realm of military interrogations since the Gitmo Camp at Guantanamo Bay opened. The document is a secret 84-page interrogation log that details the interrogation of 'Detainee 063' at Guantanamo Bay. It is a remarkable look into the range of techniques and methods used for the interrogation of Mohammed al Qahtani, who is widely believed to be the so-called 20th hijacker, a compatriof Osama bin Laden and a man who had tried to enter the U.S. in August 2001 to take part in the Sept. 11 attacks. TIME's report, by Adam Zagorin and Michael Duffy, appears in this week's issue (on newsstands Monday).

A Night Watchman's Diary: The log reads like a night watchman's diary. It is a sometimes shocking and often mundane hour-by-hour, even minute-by-minute account of a campaign to extract information. The log records every time al- Qahtani eats, sleeps, exercises or goes to the bathroom and every time he complies with or refuses his interrogators' requests. The detainee's physical condition is frequently checked by medical corpsmen-sometimes as often as three times a day-which indicates either spectacular concern about al-Qahtani's health or persistent worry about just how much stress he can take. Although the log does not appear obviously censored, it is also plainly incomplete: there are numerous gaps in the notes about what is said and what is happening in the interrogation booth beyond details like "Detainee taken to bathroom and walked for 10 minutes," TIME reports.

Chief Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita tells TIME that the log was compiled by various uniformed interrogators and observers on the Pentagon's Joint Task Force at Gitmo as the interrogation proceeded. It is stamped SECRET ORCON, a military acronym for a document that is supposed to remain with the organization that created it. A Pentagon official who has seen the log describes it as the "kind of document that was never meant to leave Gitmo."

Winter 2002-03 - Additional Techniques Approved: Despite the information gaps, the log offers a rare glimpse into the darker reaches of intelligence gathering, in which teams that specialize in extracting information by almost any means match wits and wills with men who are trained to keep quiet at almost any cost. It spans 50 days in the winter of 2002-03, from November to early January, a critical period at Gitmo, during which 16 additional interrogation techniques were approved by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for use on a select few detainees, including al-Qahtani, TIME reports.

More Muscular Strategies: Al-Qahtani's resilience under pressure in the fall of 2002 led top officials at Gitmo to petition Washington for more muscular "counter resistance strategies." On Dec. 2, Rumsfeld approved 16 of 19 stronger coercive methods. Now the interrogators could use stress strategies like standing for prolonged periods, isolation for as long as 30 days, removal of clothing, forced shaving of facial hair, playing on "individual phobias" (such as dogs) and "mild, non-injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking in the chest with the finger and light pushing." According to the log, al-Qahtani experienced several of those over the next five weeks. The techniques Rumsfeld balked at included "use of a wet towel or dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation." "Our Armed Forces are trained," a Pentagon memo on the changes read, "to a standard of interrogation that reflects a tradition of restraint." Nevertheless, the log shows that interrogators poured bottles of water on al-Qahtani's head when he refused to drink. Interrogators called this game "Drink Water or Wear It."

Dripping Water or Playing Christina Aguilera Music: After the new measures are approved, the mood in al-Qahtani's interrogation booth changes dramatically. The interrogation sessions lengthen. The quizzing now starts at midnight, and when Detainee 063 dozes off, interrogators rouse him by dripping water on his head or playing Christina Aguilera music. According to the log, his handlers at one point perform a puppet show "satirizing the detainee's involvement with al-Qaeda." He is taken to a new interrogation booth, which is decorated with pictures of 9/11 victims, American flags and red lights. He has to stand for the playing of the U.S. national anthem. His head and beard are shaved. He is returned to his original interrogation booth. A picture of a 9/11 victim is taped to his trousers. Al-Qahtani repeats that he will "not talk until he is interrogated the proper way." At 7 a.m. on Dec. 4, after a 12-hour, all-night session, he is put to bed for a four-hour nap, TIME reports.

Invasion of Space by Female: Over the next few days, al-Qahtani is subjected to a drill known as Invasion of Space by a Female, and he becomes especially agitated by the close physical presence of a woman. Then, around 2 p.m. on Dec. 6, comes another small breakthrough. He asks his handlers for some paper. "I will tell the truth," he says. "I am doing this to get out of here." He finally explains how he got to Afghanistan in the first place and how he met with bin Laden. In return, the interrogators honor requests from him to have a blanket and to turn off the air conditioner. Soon enough, the pressure ratchets up again. Various strategies of intimidation are employed anew. The log reveals that a dog is present, but no details are given beyond a hazy reference to a disagreement between the military police and the dog handler. Agitated, al-Qahtani takes back the story he told the day before about meeting bin Laden, TIME reports.

A 24-Hour Time Out: But a much more serious problem develops on Dec. 7: a medical corpsman reports that al-Qahtani is becoming seriously dehydrated, the result of his refusal to take water regularly. He is given an IV drip, and a doctor is summoned. An unprecedented 24-hour time out is called, but even as al-Qahtani is put under a doctor's care, music is played to "prevent detainee from sleeping." Nine hours later, a medical corpsman checks al-Qahtani's pulse and finds it "unusually slow." An electrocardiogram is administered by a doctor, and after al-Qahtani is transferred to a hospital, a CT scan is performed. A second doctor is consulted. Al-Qahtani's heartbeat is regular but slow: 35 beats a minute. He is placed in isolation and hooked up to a heart monitor, TIME reports.

Has Big Story to Tell: Over the next month, the interrogators experiment with other tactics. They strip-search him and briefly make him stand nude. They tell him to bark like a dog and growl at pictures of terrorists. They hang pictures of scantily clad women around his neck. A female interrogator so annoys al-Qahtani that he tells his captors he wants to commit suicide and asks for a crayon to write a will. At one stage, an Arabic-speaking serviceman, posing as a fellow detainee, is brought to Camp X-Ray for a short stay in an effort to gain al-Qahtani's confidence. The log reports that al-Qahtani makes several comments to interrogators that imply he has a big story to tell, but interrogators report that he seems either too scared or simply unwilling, to tell it. On Jan. 10, 2003, al-Qahtani says he knows nothing of terrorists but volunteers to return to the gulf states and act as a double agent for the U.S. in exchange for his freedom. Five days later, Rumsfeld's harsher measures are revoked after military lawyers in Washington raised questions about their use and efficacy, TIME reports.

I have to say, I think some of this is revolting.

I still despise Donald Rumsfeld also.

And Lynndie England is one of only a few taking the punishment for this sort of behavior. I think a lot more people should be held responsible - all the way up the chain of command.

I'm not really sure what "acceptable" interrogation methods are, to be honest, which is why I posted the thread. Maybe some of you will have some ideas.

[PacHead]

I have to say the thread title is misleading, as there is nothing that could be described as torture in the article. Those are simple, common sense coercion methods, and I of course approve of all.



The Christina Aguilera music might qualify as torture though.

[Randman]

As George Carlin once said: You know, when you get down to it, torture is a pretty good way of getting someone to tell you what they want.

[Cody Dawg]

There is a problem: Lynndie England is going to trial for standing there with a guy on a leash.

Sound familiar?

Invasion of Space by Female: Over the next few days, al-Qahtani is subjected to a drill known as Invasion of Space by a Female, and he becomes especially agitated by the close physical presence of a woman. Then, around 2 p.m. on Dec. 6, comes another small breakthrough. He asks his handlers for some paper. "I will tell the truth," he says. "I am doing this to get out of here." He finally explains how he got to Afghanistan in the first place and how he met with bin Laden. In return, the interrogators honor requests from him to have a blanket and to turn off the air conditioner. Soon enough, the pressure ratchets up again. Various strategies of intimidation are employed anew. The log reveals that a dog is present, but no details are given beyond a hazy reference to a disagreement between the military police and the dog handler.

So, which is it? Lynndie England committed torture or not?

I mean, come on!

You can't have it both ways.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

There is a problem: Lynndie England is going to trial for standing there with a guy on a leash.

These people did some things that are much more serious.

So, which is it? Lynndie England committed torture but these people did not?

I mean, come on!

You can't have it both ways.

You're mixing up Gitmo (Cuba) with Abu Graib (Iraq). They're two very different situations, with different rules. Gitmo for example does not fall under the Geneva conventions, but the detainee camps in Iraq do, I believe.

[Cody Dawg]

Why are they so different? Seriously? We're allowed to treat people inhumanely in one situation and not in the other? Simply because of geography?

Doesn't sound right to me.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Why are they so different? Seriously? We're allowed to treat people inhumanely in one situation and not in the other? Simply because of geography?

Doesn't sound right to me.

Many legal experts agree that the Geneva Convention applies in Iraq but not in Guantanamo Bay. "The Guantanamo Bay detains people detained in the war on terrorism. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to the war on terrorism. There is no nation state that has signed the Geneva Conventions with which we're fighting. We're fighting a non-state organization with a collection of people from all kinds of countries, and these people violate the laws of war at the very core and use it to kill lots of civilians, as we saw on Sept. 11. The Geneva Conventions do not contain a definition of torture or a definition of inhumane treatment. And so countries have tried to interpret that by practice. It depends on the context".

http://wais.stanford.edu/General/gen...convention.htm

[Randman]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

We're allowed to treat people inhumanely in one situation and not in the other?

Yes.

Besides, it's not as if any innocent people were picked up and sent to Gitmo. And kept there.

Those animals would do far worse to any citizen of any Western country if given the chance.

[Cody Dawg]

I heard different. What about the boys that were sent there? And the British citizens who wound up there and claimed that they never should have been there?

[Randman]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

What about the boys that were sent there? And the British citizens who wound up there and claimed that they never should have been there?

Are the boys still there? Are the same techniques used on them? Do you have proof that the teens weren't terrorists or attacking US and British soldiers?

Same for those who claimed they were Brits. And if they were British, why were they fighting US and British troops in Afghanistan?

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I heard different. What about the boys that were sent there? And the British citizens who wound up there and claimed that they never should have been there?

British ? Who cares what country they came from ? British Jihadist muslims have murdered many people in suicide attacks. Of course people will claim they're innocent, they are trained to do this, and their manual teaches them precisely that. They kill people for a living, do you expect them not to lie ?

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Randman

Same for those who claimed they were Brits. And if they were British, why were they fighting US and British troops in Afghanistan?

yep. . . good question. . .

[Dave Brasgalla]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

On Dec. 2, Rumsfeld approved 16 of 19 stronger coercive methods. Now the interrogators could use stress strategies like standing for prolonged periods, isolation for as long as 30 days, removal of clothing, forced shaving of facial hair, playing on "individual phobias" (such as dogs)...

For a moment he was alone, then the door opened and O'Brien came in.

'You asked me once,' said O'Brien, 'what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world.'

The door opened again. A guard came in, carrying something made of wire, a box or basket of some kind. He set it down on the further table. Because of the position in which O'Brien was standing. Winston could not see what the thing was.

'The worst thing in the world,' said O'Brien, 'varies from individual to individual. It may be burial alive, or death by fire, or by drowning, or by impalement, or fifty other deaths. There are cases where it is some quite trivial thing, not even fatal.'

He had moved a little to one side, so that Winston had a better view of the thing on the table. It was an oblong wire cage with a handle on top for carrying it by. Fixed to the front of it was something that looked like a fencing mask, with the concave side outwards. Although it was three or four metres away from him, he could see that the cage was divided lengthways into two compartments, and that there was some kind of creature in each. They were rats.

'In your case,' said O'Brien, 'the worst thing in the world happens to be rats.'

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Dave Brasgalla

For a moment he was alone, then the door opened and O'Brien came in.

'You asked me once,' said O'Brien, 'what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world.'

The door opened again. A guard came in, carrying something made of wire, a box or basket of some kind. He set it down on the further table. Because of the position in which O'Brien was standing. Winston could not see what the thing was.

'The worst thing in the world,' said O'Brien, 'varies from individual to individual. It may be burial alive, or death by fire, or by drowning, or by impalement, or fifty other deaths. There are cases where it is some quite trivial thing, not even fatal.'

He had moved a little to one side, so that Winston had a better view of the thing on the table. It was an oblong wire cage with a handle on top for carrying it by. Fixed to the front of it was something that looked like a fencing mask, with the concave side outwards. Although it was three or four metres away from him, he could see that the cage was divided lengthways into two compartments, and that there was some kind of creature in each. They were rats.

'In your case,' said O'Brien, 'the worst thing in the world happens to be rats.'

That's just a book. Gitmo is real life. Winston never existed. Terrorists do exist.

[OreoCookie]

Dehumanization is disgusting.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Dehumanization is disgusting.

de·hu·man·ize P Pronunciation Key (d-hym-nz)
tr.v. de·hu·man·ized, de·hu·man·iz·ing, de·hu·man·iz·es
To deprive of human qualities such as individuality, compassion, or civility

People who do not possess such qualities have no right to be treated according to western standards, which contradict their own beliefs.

[Cody Dawg]

Oh, come on, PacHead.

GIVE. ME. A. BREAK.

Do you HONESTLY think that EVERY person there is a terrorist? Every single one of them?

I don't.

Neither do a lot of other people - including many conservatives. (Of which I am one.)

I don't think it's right to torture people, dehumanize them, do anything to make another person suffer. I used to be for the death penalty as long as it was quick and painless, but now I'm not even for that because I've come to believe that there are innocent people paying the ultimate punishment: Death.

Now, second to that is torture. That's my opinion.

Sure, incarcerate them in a bare cement cell and give them food and water and wait for them to crack. But no one has a right to harm another person's body. Not even if it was done to them. It lowers the victim to the status of the criminal or the amoral person.

As the saying goes, "Your entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts." (Daniel Moynihan)

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Oh, come on, PacHead.

GIVE. ME. A. BREAK.

Do you HONESTLY think that EVERY person there is a terrorist? Every single one of them?

I don't.

Neither do a lot of other people - including many conservatives. (Of which I am one.)

Even if 1 out of 100 is not, I don't see how that changes anything. No system is perfect, including our own legal system. There's been innocent people convicted of various crimes in the past. I'm sure there's a few innocent people in our regular civilian jails, out of the millions who are locked up. I wouldn't be shocked if the same were true in other prisons. This is war afterall, and crap will happen.

As for Gitmo, even though the USA is not bound by the Geneva conventions, we're treating them far better than they deserve.

(1) They're in a nice tropical climate.
(2) They can practice their hatred, and their religion.
(3) They get to eat their specially prepared religous meals.
(4) They receive free healthcare, something many Americans do not have.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Why are they so different? Seriously? We're allowed to treat people inhumanely in one situation and not in the other? Simply because of geography?

Doesn't sound right to me.

While I would say making ANY man be in close approximation with Lynndie could be considered torture... Come on.

[Cody Dawg]

Well, that may be true. But, I feel sorry for her. She was not smart enough to disobey a commanding officer's orders.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Well, that may be true. But, I feel sorry for her. She was not smart enough to disobey a commanding officer's orders.

If you have unsmart soldiers, I really see cause for concerns...

On the other hand, she has been trained to not disobey orders...

[Cody Dawg]

Yeah, she didn't disobey an order. So she stood there with a man on the end of a leash because she was told to and for that she is going to go to prison for a very long time. Meanwhile, the commanding officer in charge gets away Scot free. I'd say that is a miscarriage of justice.

[Cody Dawg]

Oh, and by the way, CNN happens to agree with my perception of this "reality."

Linkage.

[Cody Dawg]

The interrogation techniques included refusing al-Qahtani a bathroom break and forcing him to urinate in his pants.

"It's not appropriate," said Sen. Chuck Hagel on CNN's "Late Edition." "It's not at all within the standards of who we are as a civilized people, what our laws are.

"If in fact we are treating prisoners this way, it's not only wrong, it's dangerous and very dumb and very shortsighted," the Nebraska Republican said.

"This is not how you win the people of the world over to our side, especially the Muslim world."

During the period covered by the logbook, Time reported, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved 16 additional interrogation techniques for use on certain detainees.

Afterward, interrogators began their sessions with al-Qahtani at midnight and awakened him with dripping water or Christina Aguilera music if he dozed off, the magazine article reported.

The magazine said the techniques approved by Rumsfeld included "standing for prolonged periods, isolation for as long as 30 days, removal of clothing, forced shaving of facial hair" and hanging "pictures of scantily clad women around his neck."

Hagel said such treatment should offend the sensibilities of "any straight-thinking American, any straight-thinking citizen of the world."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, said on the same program that the treatment outlined in the article presents "a kind of ludicrous view of the United States."

"I don't know what tree we're barking up," she said. "It is a terrible mistake."

"I don't know why we didn't learn from Bagram," she added, referring to a U.S. base in Afghanistan. "I don't know why we didn't learn from Abu Ghraib [prison in Iraq], but here we are in Guantanamo with many of the same things surfacing."

Hagel raised questions about the quality of leadership that would allow such things to happen, drawing a comparison to his own experience fighting in Vietnam.

"We've been reassured for the last two years it's not happening when in fact it is happening," he said.

That about hits the nail on the head, I'd say.

Rumsfield should resign or be tried himself.

[Zimphire]

The magazine said the techniques approved by Rumsfeld included "standing for prolonged periods, isolation for as long as 30 days, removal of clothing, forced shaving of facial hair" and hanging "pictures of scantily clad women around his neck."

OMG R U KIDDING ME!

THEY MADE THEM SHAVE THEIR BEARDS?!?

STAND?!@?


THAT IS IT!!1 I QUIT AMERICA

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Yeah, she didn't disobey an order. So she stood there with a man on the end of a leash because she was told to and for that she is going to go to prison for a very long time. Meanwhile, the commanding officer in charge gets away Scot free. I'd say that is a miscarriage of justice.

Well, any human beings is faced with a dilemma at some point of their lives.

For a soldier, I suppose it is all about whether an action is justified or not. How could she have known? What were her superiors informed of to make this order, if they did? Then, what went on in her mind?

I am not clear whether we can blame her in the context of a war. But is there a war? Or is it a police action?

Were the people tortured criminals? Or fighters defending? their country? Were they terrorists, and if so, who did they terrorized?

You want to blame Rumsfeld? Fine, what is your case? Can you prove he gave the orders to torture? Because one soldier has made a criminal action, does the whole country should take the blame? Or should it stop to Rumsfeld, and then, why not, the President?

There is a limit to responsibility, and blaming Rumsfeld, without any proof, is useless. Someone can be blame for giving orders, but maybe the blame falls on the person who acted the orders...

Good questions I think.

[Cody Dawg]

Do you read? Did you READ the article that cites the report? It said that Rumsfeld SPECIFICALLY ordered specific tortures - physical tortures - so he very well knew about it.

He's an evil old man who will soon be dancing with the devil - if he isn't already.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Do you read? Did you READ the article that cites the report? It said that Rumsfeld SPECIFICALLY ordered specific tortures - physical tortures - so he very well knew about it.

He's an evil old man who will soon be dancing with the devil - if he isn't already.

No I did not read the article.

I am so used to hear denial over what went on that I decided to stop reading about this type of information, and ask questions instead.

That it is published in any newspaper is no proof of wrong doing. There is also a good case for torture in some situations, meaning, people will find easy justifications to satisfy some need to oppress others, although I doubt it really works, which means, in my mind, that it is useless.

The whole invasion of Iraq had a few good points, like the removal of Hussein. But everything else was just not acceptable to me. Actually, the way it goes in Iraq, the more we were right to be against it, and this episode with Rumsfeld that you are mentionning is a drop from a bucket of very dirty water.

But heck, some choose to live in la-la-land and not question their leaders; that is what you get for it. And believe me, I am certain we are not done seeing of that stuff. Just wait for the last year of Bush's mandate.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Do you read? Did you READ the article that cites the report? It said that Rumsfeld SPECIFICALLY ordered specific tortures - physical tortures - so he very well knew about it.

Can you please name those specific physical tortures?

BTW, making someone shave their beard or stand, doesn't count.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Can you please name those specific physical tortures?

BTW, making someone shave their beard or stand, doesn't count.

Yes it does, if it has significance for them.

For you it means nothing. For them, it does.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Yes it does, if it has significance for them.

For you it means nothing. For them, it does.

You're finally catching on. We don't care about them.

[RAILhead]

Dang, I didn't see anything at all "wrong" with what was said. Holy crap, if it were up to me, you'd be able to do a heck of a lot worse to people than deprive them of sleep, shave their heads (no, I don't care about the "religious" implications), stand on a box, etc.

Torture?

You have to be kidding me! Our great great grandparents are calling us all Princess from their graves...

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Yes it does, if it has significance for them.

For you it means nothing. For them, it does.

No, no it does not.

If I think someone staring at me is torture, and they do it, can I get them arrested?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

You have to be kidding me! Our great great grandparents are calling us all Princess from their graves...

I know man

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

No, no it does not.

If I think someone staring at me is torture, and they do it, can I get them arrested?

You have a talent. Keep up the good work!

[Dave Brasgalla]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Holy crap, if it were up to me, you'd be able to do a heck of a lot worse to people than deprive them of sleep, shave their heads (no, I don't care about the "religious" implications), stand on a box, etc.

Then I am grateful that it is not up to you.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Originally Posted by Railhead

You have to be kidding me! Our great great grandparents are calling us all Princess from their graves...

I know man

[Cody Dawg]

Then I am grateful that it is not up to you.

Hear, hear.

[tie]

Here's an interesting article on torture: quoted here, full text (requires subscription) here. The point raised is that torture is not a very effective method of extracting information. I am not an expert, of course, but this is an interesting point.

Here is another from the Atlantic Monthly two years ago, which presented mostly the opposite viewpoint. (Free version is here as pdf.)

"I'll tell you how to make a man talk," a retired Special Forces officer says. "You shoot the man to his left and the man to his right. Then you can't shut him up."

Regardless, it is quite probable that more Americans have died because of Bush's policies supporting torture than have been saved. Americans torturing prisoners has been a terrible PR defeat for us. Abu Ghraib was very bad, but it has gotten even worse as more torture incidents have come to light, and as nobody has been credibly held responsible. Bush's strong support lesser forms of torture (which many interpret as winking at worse forms) has also harmed us.

Bush's support of sending prisoners to be tortured in other countries is quite ingenious, though. America can send prisoners to suffer drowning, suffocation, rape, and immersion in boiling water (according to reports from Uzbekistan), but since we aren't doing it directly I think the bad press has been much less than comparably minor incidents in Guantanamo.

Supporting torture, even in weak forms, these days is ridiculous. You might as well go out to Iraq and place a roadside bomb yourself.

[RAILhead]

Oh I hear you -- trust me, you wouldn't want me in charge, and I can't say I blame you.

[Randman]

Cody,
what you don't seem to get (as a journalist, you often ignore the facts, which is bad), is the tactics aren't being used on all prisoners at gitmo.

If someone was picked up by accident (not likely but possible), all they had to do was cooperate with the soldiers. Many have and many have been set free.

Many have not and those are most likely the ones with Al Qaida connections. And they can be dehumanized or tortured for all I care.

Are you saying that Usoma's lackeys don't deserve what they get?

[Warung]

more goodness:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/12/git...cnn_topstories

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Randman

Cody,
what you don't seem to get (as a journalist, you often ignore the facts, which is bad), is the tactics aren't being used on all prisoners at gitmo.

EXACTLY> Only a small minority are being put through these "horrors" and that's all we hear about. unfortunately, there are no horrors and that's why nothing ever comes of these "atrocities."

Maury

[Cody Dawg]

Cody,
what you don't seem to get (as a journalist, you often ignore the facts, which is bad), is the tactics aren't being used on all prisoners at gitmo.

If someone was picked up by accident (not likely but possible), all they had to do was cooperate with the soldiers. Many have and many have been set free.

Many have not and those are most likely the ones with Al Qaida connections. And they can be dehumanized or tortured for all I care.

Are you saying that Usoma's lackeys don't deserve what they get?

What I'm saying is that people should not be treated this way whether they are Bin Laden's lackeys or not.

Apprehend them until they get a TRIAL, then lock them up. Why torture them?

For Pete's sake, WHY TORTURE THEM?

Because we want to find out where Bin Laden is? He is so slippery that even when the U.S. government knows where he is and goes to get him he is gone just hours before we get him.

What makes people think that these guys at Gitmo have any idea - at all - about where Bin Laden is?

The truth is that they are now locked up because we can't let them go because they WILL become terrorists because they've been treated badly. If they were marginal terrorists - followers - then they will certainly become radicals when released.

Torturing people does not work, as others pointed out.

It is sadistic and it is evil and it reduces our good men and women to a level that I would say causes more damage than anything else.

Gitmo is one of the reasons why the world despises the United States.

Where IS the line between "acceptable torture" (as approved by Rumsfeld) and abuse?

???

[OreoCookie]

It doesn't matter if only a few, half or all go through torture. Torture is torture, whether you apply it on one or many inmates. What most of them have in common is that they haven't had a trial and even no trial date.

[Randman]

You're right Cody. I say send the rat bastards to Syria or Saudia Arabia where they'd really get worked over.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Where IS the line between "acceptable torture" (as approved by Rumsfeld) and abuse?

There is none, the question you are asking here: what is acceptable torture?

Just imagine an American (or European or whatever) is treated like this: deprived of sleep, etc. Would you cry foul? I hope you would.

[Randman]

Someone linked to Usama and AQ? Hardly.

What I find sad is these animals would torture and kill Cody's children and be happy about it and brag about it and Cody thinks they should be held up as heroes and lauded.

These animals aren't being picked up off the street. They're not conscripts who should be back tending an opium farm n Afghanistan. They are hard-core terrorists. My view is if keeping a few of them from getting a good night sleep is going to save innocent lives (such as those killed in the WTC attacks and Bali and Madrid and other places), well that's too bad. They made a choice and they should have be repsonsible for said actions.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Randman

Someone linked to Usama and AQ? Hardly.

What I find sad is these animals would torture and kill Cody's children and be happy about it and brag about it and Cody thinks they should be held up as heroes and lauded.

And where did she say that?

These animals aren't being picked up off the street. They're not conscripts who should be back tending an opium farm n Afghanistan. They are hard-core terrorists. My view is if keeping a few of them from getting a good night sleep is going to save innocent lives (such as those killed in the WTC attacks and Bali and Madrid and other places), well that's too bad. They made a choice and they should have be repsonsible for said actions.

[RAILhead]

BUT I HAVE YET TO READ ANYTHING THAT EQUALS TORTURE.

That's MY point.

Maybe I'm just a lot tougher than I think I am...?