Well, they're going to argue that if the jihadis are afraid of Gitmo, they're less likely to surrender peacefully and more likely to take soldiers out on their way to the 72.

And you're right that the screeching torture fabulists are playing to the papers, but I tend to connect this stuff more with fundraising. I don't think it's any coincidence that we hear this from Durbin while the Democrats lament the futility of Dean's money-raising efforts. I'd like to be a fly on the wall at Durbin's office, watching them open envelopes with $5 bills in there from moonbats all over the country. And you can bet they're rolling in.

Let's move Gitmo to San Francisco or Berkely.

The dirty hippies will have a hard time screaming their talking points if it involves bashing their favorite place.

More Trouble at Gitmo!! Cubans break into Gitmo!!

http://armedvictim.blogspot.com/

Anyone who supports even the idea of a Guantanemo Bay prison deserves to be sent to one. What's wrong with Gitmo? Just about everything. Rather than list the abuses we've heard about, abhorrent behavior on the part of our own troops and intelligence people, perhaps it's a good idea here to examine the standard arguments for why we should torture our captives.

1. "It's the only way to break hardened terrorists." Actually, it isn't. Experts in the field (documented all over the net) assert that torture rarely proves effective. If you want a jihadist to talk, you need something akin to a deprogrammer. You need to gain the person's trust, and in most cases a cigarette, a glass of water and a calm discussion will do the trick. And you get intel that you can bank on.

2. "Gitmo's great because it's outside our legal system." This is probably the worst idea of the bunch. Each of the prisoners at Gitmo deserves a full review of the reasons for his incarceration. If we can't prove the individual is a terrorist, then we ought to return him to his home. If we can't prove that a detainee is a terrorist, then why are we holding him? The burden of proof is on the captor. So far, it's becoming very clear that some percentage of the people we've locked up down there are entirely innocent.

3. "We have to keep them at Gitmo or else they'll come at us again." Well, as in point 2, we don't know how many of these people would qualify as terrorists. But of the genuine enemy combatants, they were probably coming at us with AK-47s, maybe RPGs in some cases, but they're unlikely to be a threat to any of us here at home. These aren't the 9/11 people.

4. "We're sending a message to the terrorists. They're frightened of Gitmo." Maybe they are. But America has traditionally led by example, and here's where we need to adhere to the Geneva Conventions more than ever before. When our people get captured, and we learn that our sons and daughters are being brutalized in torture camps, we won't have the ability to protest. No POW can expect anything but a hard time in the best of circumstances, but they should never be stripped naked and tortured. Rumsfeld has established a very dangerous policy.

5. "At least we're getting results!" From whom? People we've had in custody for 3 years and running? Whatever they know, it's stale and likely to be of little use.

As an American, I want to be able to look at my country, my government, and my military with pride. I want to know that we uphold the highest standards of human rights and decency, and that we're challenging the rest of the world to meet our standard. It is simply appalling that we're sinking to the level of the KGB here, that we're showing all the hallmarks of a totalitarian state. Anybody who thinks this is a necessary or positive development is someone to be pitied.

Now I lheart Gitmo even more, if that is possible. :-)

Ravan: They also don't get cable TV. That's torture in my book.

Raven,
I really hadn't heard that the detainees in Gitmo are being tortured. What is going on? I am so out of the loop.
I also heard that all of them had had tribunals already and that some were released home.
Was that not true?

When our people get captured, and we learn that our sons and daughters are being brutalized in torture camps, we won't have the ability to protest. No POW can expect anything but a hard time in the best of circumstances, but they should never be stripped naked and tortured. Rumsfeld has established a very dangerous policy.

Have our POW's EVER been treated well? How far back in history can we extend the blame for this to Donald Rumsfeld?
No offense, but you are talking crazy stupid out of your head.

Excitable Andy and Dick Durbin have no alternate plan as to how we can accomplish this obviously-critical goal.

Why, give the terrorists a hug, a cigarette and a glass of water and they will talk, of course.
How silly of our trained military specialists that they didn't know that!

lauraw: You lie (just like Bushco). Being liberal means you are an expert at everything (this includes interrogation technieuqes).

As an American, I want to be able to look at my country, my government, and my military with pride.

But you can't, because our country is a corrupt capitalist prison, our government is being run by right wing fascists, and our military is immoral, right?

You'd LIKE to be proud of your country, but you just can't be right now.

Ah, I can taste the nuance!
Raven, if you keep talking, the Dems are going to nominate you to run in '08.

The problem is that we don't know who we have. The majority of Gitmo detainees are not direct US captures, they're people that the Afghan forces (mostly private militia) caught and "sold" to us for "capture rewards".

They're from a country that does not even know how many citizens it has, let alone any means of ID whatsoever. It falls to US guards to ID these people (I'd assume they ask them , at least initially.) and through IDs from wanted alerts and IDs from cellmates and fellow detainees.

Legitmate threat of being forced to release the detainees we can't prosecute might light a fire under someone's ass to figure out who and what we really have.

War will never cease until babies begin to come into the world with larger cerebrums and smaller adrenal glands.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

The typical American of today has lost all the love of liberty, that his forefathers had, and all their disgust of emotion, and pride in self-reliance. He is led no longer by Davy Crocketts; he is led by cheerleaders. (This one is most fitting IMO)

I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty enough to want to force it upon anyone.

All government, of course, is against liberty.

Most people want security in this world, not liberty.

The trouble with Communism is the Communists, just as the trouble with Christianity is the Christians.

In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.

I have no problem being rough with convicted terrorists. I could even see torture being permissible in some rare 24ish conditions.

What I don't like is the idea of imprisoning and torturing innocent (ie unconvicted) people who have nothing to do with terrorism. We know many were picked up because the were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Without a trial how can we separate the evil from the unlucky?

More importantly, once the rule of law goes out the window, what is there to provide accountability and oversight to the power of government? For a group that goes into spasms any time someone even hints at limiting gun rights you are taking the loss of habeas corpus pretty easily.

Keep in mind a trial is still required for unlawful enemy combatants under Geneva and federal law.

Let's move Gitmo to San Francisco or Berkely.

The dirty hippies will have a hard time screaming their talking points if it involves bashing their favorite place.

I remember before the war they had these same hippies marching against this war in downtown San Francisco (of course it wasn't in the news, I saw it because I lived there).

I have a new nickname for them (based on their beliefs). Here it is:
100% correct!!

Keep in mind, they have ALL HAD HEARINGS before a tribunal WHICH SATISFIES THAT REQUIREMENT. How many times does it have to be reiterated before it gets through?

In fact a couple dozen of them have been let go- and some of them were recaptured later in Afghanistan, for burning and bombing like old times.

You really believe our military is interested in imprisoning innocents?

-satisfies the requirement for laful combatants, that is. All that unlawful combatants are owed in Geneva is a bullet.

We know many were picked up because the were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

We do? And, who is "we"? You? I doubt it.

Without a trial how can we separate the evil from the unlucky?

Well, apparantly we can and do, since we have release a number of them.

The trouble with Shane is the Shanisms.
In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not Shane. [I got a million of them!]

The tribunals are crap because there is an exceedingly low burden of proof to hold someone. One person's uncollaborated and potentially intentionally false id is enough to hold you. In the case of a court, my word versus yours is not enough to hold you, in the tribs it's enough to deny you a hearing based upon the evidence. Under LauraW's assertion, it's enough to put a bullet in your head.

Also, I don't know if you caught this, but of the recidivists, the majority were initially released due to mistaked IDs as non-involved or non-combatants and would have remained incarcerated if properly IDed the first time

Sane and knowing incompetence on the part of the leadership is not a defense for illegality. If we don't want recidivism, we should train the personnel making the identifications how to ID someone before we try them.

"It is inaccurate to say Shane hates everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office." - H. L. Mencken

What the government is not being fully honest about is the real purpose of Gitmo, which is TERROR. That is why they lockup and abuse/ torture some people whom they know are very well innocent This is a very well known method. Ace makes this point in his last paragragh, sortof. As far as closing Gitmo, I thought they might and farm the prisoners out to countrys such as Egypt and Turkey, that way the terror continues and America has aPR problem off it's hands.

Raven sez - Anyone who supports even the idea of a Guantanemo Bay prison deserves to be sent to one.

Actually, terrorist-huggers obsessed with the "civil liberties" of Muslims out to kill us deserve a nice prison of their own, but we unfortunately let sedition laws for giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" lapse, or Dick Durbin would be in one now...

Experts in the field (documented all over the net) assert that torture rarely proves effective.

And that is why every military and police force for recorded history has independently decided to use it. Because it is ineffective. Those silly military officers and detectives! Why did they presume to know more than a typical Leftist Jewish lawyer or gay English gob-smacking pundit!

If you want a jihadist to talk, you need something akin to a deprogrammer. You need to gain the person's trust, and in most cases a cigarette, a glass of water and a calm discussion will do the trick.

And you get intel that you can bank on.

Wow! In most cases, then all we needed with Al Qaeda was just a calm discussion and giving them a glass of water and a cigarette and the next thing you know, they are spilling their guts!! How could America been so stupid at Gitmo. Free Korans, calm discussions, and gourmet meals weren't the answer! They were actually waiting on water and cigarettes!

Clearly you don't know squat about even criminal interrogation.

Each of the prisoners at Gitmo deserves a full review of the reasons for his incarceration. If we can't prove the individual is a terrorist, then we ought to return him to his home.

In wartime enemy combatants are held to protect our people and troops in the field. Not subject to review if they are enemy. This isn't about criminal wrongdoing and due process.

The burden of proof is on the captor.

What are you talking about, you fucking moron??? Where in Geneva does it talk about "burden of proof"? By the rules of war, we are even entitled to execute them on the spot for violating and thus losing all Geneva protections by flouting the Conventions.

But of the genuine enemy combatants, they were probably coming at us with AK-47s, maybe RPGs in some cases, but they're unlikely to be a threat to any of us here at home. These aren't the 9/11 people.

Plenty who came at us in Afghanistan with weapons are Al Qaeda, many in Iraq have turned out to be fanatic killers operating outside all rules of war.

No threat to us? You psychotic jackass! A dozen we released were recaptured after picking up their RPGs and AK-47s again and trying to kill Americans or our allies. We greased one such 16-year old Islamoid after he killed an American and wounded 2. Yes, a poor child! We beastly Americans killed a Kalashnikov shooting little Muslim baby!! Oh, the humanity!!

I wonder that Raven and Shane could see to type through their tear-swollen eyes.

Hm. It occurs to me that the sentence would make more sense this way: "I wonder how Raven and Shane could see through their tear-swollen eyes to type." What can I say -- it's hard to write a coherent statement when you've been crying your eyes out over the plight of the poor tortured Gitmo terrorists. Boohoo!

Raven (con't) -

But America has traditionally led by example, and here's where we need to adhere to the Geneva Conventions more than ever before.

You are saying that only one side must be bound by the Geneva Conventions that are legal treaties both sides must sign to be in effect. If the Islamoids are bound by no rules, yet are supposed to get all the benefits of treatment as if they complied by the rules...Sounds like their is no down side or punishment you think Islamoids should suffer for violating all rules of warfare. Then can America join the party? No uniforms to wear, a little rape and theft on the side? Indiscriminant killing? Capping a whole village of civilians as reprisal if our troops are ambushed?? And then if we are captured can we demand our own lawyers, orange-glazed chicken dinners???

When our people get captured, and we learn that our sons and daughters are being brutalized in torture camps, we won't have the ability to protest.

As we had the ability to protest pre-Abu Ghraib when the Islamoids were busy burning, bombing, flying planes into our buildings? When they were busily head chopping and torturing their infidel captives into making statements defamatory of their nation and religion? They didn't give a shit then. In the Afghan war with the Soviets, they didn't take Soviet prisoners normally. When they did, it was only to skin them alive, teach knifework skills to younger members.

As an American, I want to be able to look at my country, my government, and my military with pride.

So do I, and that is why I enjoy watching Terrorist- loving civil libertarians climbing way out on a limb. The next big attack, even a WMD attack - and the limb gets sawed off, and with the whole seditious lot of them discredited and permanently out of any position of power & influence -- we will be able to look to our country, government, and military with added pride knowing they are freer of the infection of anti-Americans.

It is simply appalling that we're sinking to the level of the KGB here, that we're showing all the hallmarks of a totalitarian state.

Just KGB? Aren't we also the Gestapo and a bunch on Jh-eeen-Gish Khans? Pol Pot Wannabes??

Raven wrote:

Rather than list the abuses we've heard about, abhorrent behavior on the part of our own troops and intelligence people

Yeah, let's avoid listing those because they would make the rest of your arguments utterly banal.

, perhaps it's a good idea here to examine the standard arguments for why we should torture our captives.

There is no torture going on, unless you consider what drill instructors do to green recruits to be torture.

Wait, I guess you would consider that torture.

1. "It's the only way to break hardened terrorists."

There is no torture. See above. All the "friendly" methods you describe and even some you know nothing about are being used.

2. Each of the prisoners at Gitmo deserves a full review of the reasons for his incarceration. If we can't prove the individual is a terrorist, then we ought to return him to his home.

Done.

So far, it's becoming very clear that some percentage of the people we've locked up down there are entirely innocent.

Names? Sources? You have none.

3. "We have to keep them at Gitmo or else they'll come at us again." Well, as in point 2, we don't know how many of these people would qualify as terrorists. But of the genuine enemy combatants, they were probably coming at us with AK-47s, maybe RPGs in some cases, but they're unlikely to be a threat to any of us here at home. These aren't the 9/11 people.

Yeah, they're just regular Joe Mohammeds with bullets and anti-armor weapons who want to kill anyone who looks cross-eyed at a Koran. Why, I'm sure you'd be willing to house one or two of these poor innocent fellows yourself.

Read what happens when one of these terrorists is put into a civilian prison (also note the source.) And read how this same one can garner leftist sympathy by lying his ass off.

4. "We're sending a message to the terrorists. They're frightened of Gitmo." Maybe they are. But America has traditionally led by example, and here's where we need to adhere to the Geneva Conventions more than ever before.

Geneva Conventions, yes indeed! The Conventions say that if a military tribunal finds a combatant guilty of purposefully endangering civilians by not wearing uniforms and using women and children as shields, that combatant can be summarily executed.

So I agree with you on this one. Geneva Conventions all the way!

5. "At least we're getting results!" From whom? People we've had in custody for 3 years and running? Whatever they know, it's stale and likely to be of little use.

Or maybe we're foiling many plots that were being planned in Afghanistan and Iraq and America and Europe. Who knows? I don't, and unless you have some inside knowledge, you don't either.

As an American, I want to be able to look at my country, my government, and my military with pride. I want to know that we uphold the highest standards of human rights and decency, and that we're challenging the rest of the world to meet our standard.

Bullshit. You'd criticize this country no matter what. Well, as long as we have Republicans in power, anyway.

It is simply appalling that we're sinking to the level of the KGB here, that we're showing all the hallmarks of a totalitarian state. Anybody who thinks this is a necessary or positive development is someone to be pitied.

I pity you because you can't tell the difference between this and this.

I think you misheard, Raven. What works is a glass of water and a Camel.

Actually, terrorist-huggers obsessed with the "civil liberties"...

That's a nice term, "terrorist-hugger." Sounds like xenophobic bile from a klansman. The point you're missing, cedarford, is that as Americans we don't get the luxury of expediency or utilitarianism. Sometimes, in order to uphold our most cherished ideals, we have do to things that are very difficult - like treating our captives well.

Here's a thought experiment for you. Imagine that some Islamic country, like Qatar or Iran, has invaded the U.S. and bombed us to smithereens. And let's say that the reason they did that was to prevent us from turning the city of Mecca into a Disneyland.

Well, a little ways down the road, it happens that they discover they were in error. They learn that we had no intention of attacking their shrine or whatnot, and their entire invasion was a mistake. So then they say that their "real mission" was to spread the word of Allah and improve the chances for Islam to spread throughout the world.

What would you do?

As for me, I'd be out there with my rifle killing as many of their soldiers as possible. I'd be trying my damned best to drive them back home to their cursed land, and I wouldn't show them any mercy. None.

But let's say my son or daughter was doing that too, and got captured. And then I learned that my child was sent to a torture camp (just like Gitmo). I'd be pretty upset about hearing that my kid was being abused by laughing guards. But if I went on the Internet and discovered some pro-Islamic website where the Iraqis were talking about how it's really necessary to strip these Americans nude, bind them with chains, stick them in concrete pipes and blast music at them, stomp them, hang them from the ceiling and beat them, stick lit cigarettes in their ears (all things we've done at Gitmo), etc., I think I'd be on the side of the people calling for a stop to these practices.

"The burden of proof is on the captor."

"What are you talking about, you fucking moron???"

OMG!!!!!!!!!! I'm dyin' over here! Our Seedy kicks butt!

Homey lays it down.

Easy, Sue Dohnim - you'll frighten the geldings.

OTOH, I am inspired to a *standing ovation*

Raven wrote
it's really necessary to strip [the terrorists] nude, bind them with chains, stick them in concrete pipes and blast music at them, stomp them, hang them from the ceiling and beat them, stick lit cigarettes in their ears (all things we've done at Gitmo), etc.

See that stuff in bold? I call bullshit on that.

Thanks Claire, though it's disquieting that Seedy is on the same side that I am on this issue.

Except for the JOOOOOOOOOS part, of course.

You need to gain the person's trust, and in most cases a cigarette, a glass of water and a calm discussion will do the trick.

I know what these ragheads want: Raven, be a good sport and drop your pants and bend over, because we sure as hell ain't going to do it.

But America has traditionally led by example

Here's leading by example: All combatants who do not wear a uniform, or otherwise adhere to the laws of warfare, will be lined up against a wall and shot.

, and here's where we need to adhere to the Geneva Conventions more than ever before. When our people get captured, and we learn that our sons and daughters are being brutalized in torture camps, we won't have the ability to protest.

The Islamists don't take prisoners, except to cut off their heads. But not knowing basic facts won't stop you from wasting several billion electrons on your bloviations.

As for me, I'd be out there with my rifle killing as many of their soldiers as possible. I'd be trying my damned best to drive them back home to their cursed land, and I wouldn't show them any mercy. None.

But I'm guessing that instead of that happening, you'd prefer that the Islamist invaders ship you and your terrorist kids off to a detention facility, where they would bend over backwards to accomodate your dietary and religious needs (pork chop night on Thursday! Mass on Sunday morning!) And instead of lining you and your terrorist kids up before a firing squad, I would bet that you'd prefer being shifted from a hot room to an extremely cold one, while they blast you with loud, awful-sounding Arab disco music so that you have trouble sleeping. I mean, that's tough, but it beats a bullet to the head, right? Keep in mind that you deserve a bullet to the head. You know, by the accepted standards of all-holy "International Law."

How does that "thought experiment" work out for you?

"Imagine that some Islamic country, like Qatar or Iran, has invaded the U.S. and bombed us to smithereens."

See, now, that right there is why you have no credibility. No rational person could ever conceive of a world where a bunch of ignorant, hate-filled, backwards, uncivilized, totalitarian, cowardly, disorganized, third-world, technologically-retarded, in-fighting lunatics could "invade the US and bomb it to smithereens".

The next time you're in a library, swing by the atlas section and look at a map of the US, and then a map of Iran.

Now, exactly how is a third-world country with one-tenth our population, almost no tanks, artillery, navy, air force, troop transports, etc. going to equip, move and deploy a military force large enough to "invade the US and bomb it to smithereens"?

Shit, they can't even keep a few thousand pissed off college students in line.

See, there's a reason why the US is the most powerful nation on earth, and Islamic countries are dirt-poor, backwards economic failures. It has to do with the words "democracy", "tolerance" and "civil liberties".

The country that has the most of those three qualities is the world's most powerful; the countries that have the least are the world's least powerful. Connect the dots.

Oh, and BTW, the last post was me as well.

spread the word of Allah

You mean, like, Lapdances are Holy? That's what 'our' Allah sez.

Sue, you say: I'm calling bullshit on that.

The following two articles support the majority of my post.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9120.htm
http://www.newsweekparentsguide.com/id/6743596

The concrete tubes (with speakers on each each end, occasional blasts of cold water) is supported elsewhere. I'm out of time but you can dig it up at Guardian.co.uk, iirc. What we're doing goes far beyond "underwear on the head." This stuff is genuine, good ol' fashioned torture and isn't what we're about as a country.

Some of you may be too young to have been instilled with traditional American values, some of you were exposed to them and rejected them, but I sincerely hope that the majority of us still believe that we're the best nation on earth. We prove that by how we treat our captives. It doesn't matter what the enemy does to theirs.

The addresses to the articles you posted support nothing.

Some of you may be too young to have been instilled with traditional American values, some of you were exposed to them and rejected them, but I sincerely hope that the majority of us still believe that we're the best nation on earth.

How condescending and patronizing of you. I believe we all hold traditional American values including the knowledge that we are the best nation on the earth. That is why we will not allow people like you to sell your black is white, up is down, crap unchallenged.

Some of you may be too young to have been instilled with traditional American values, some of you were exposed to them and rejected them, but I sincerely hope that the majority of us still believe that we're the best nation on earth.

What we've mainly got here is a difference of agreement on what torture actually is, and in my humble opinion, you're dead wrong. We're using coercive techniques that aren't nice, but they ain't torture. Pulling out fingernails is torture. Cutting off body parts is torture. Shallow cuts that keep the prisoner alive and in pain, but don't endanger their life--that's torture. That said, let's move on to what I quoted...

Fuck you. I really resent the tone that you're taking here. I've always been instilled with pride in our country and what it represents, and I don't care if you're older than I am. So, Fuck. You.

Raven

I was going to write back on your thought experiment but concluded that Sean M just filleted you quite nicely on most of the points I was going to make.

But on the other issues:

You call me a : A terrorist-hugger obsessed with the civil liberties of the enemy

You take umbrage at it, but please, talk away, and convince liberal democrats to join in the so far, legal sedition. I like America-bashers taking such a position because you will be so screwed the next time the Islamoids cause mass American deaths. That's why no one is actually challenging anti-American's patriotism...we're watching you all climb out on the limb..sharpening our saw for use after the Islamoids hit us hard again...

We never gave Nazis we captured in the course of WWII a trial until after the war - except for the trials we bothered with for Nazis captured out of uniform - when time permitted. Most the time, when we caught 'em on the battlefield, we just shot them on orders from a superior commissioned officer or even a non-Com if no superior commissioned officers were handy. And the Geneva Convention was not breached.

You seem very confused. In your hypothetical invasion of the US by Islamoids, you say I'd be trying my damned best to drive them back home to their cursed land, and I wouldn't show them any mercy. None. So you are saying you would personally freely violate the Geneva Conventions by giving the Islamoids no opportunity to surrender or be treated with any mercy upon capture or defeat. But then you say if your son or daughter were fighting the Islamoids and you found out there were Islamoid actrocity stories (all things we've done at Gitmo), etc., I think I'd be on the side of the people calling for a stop to these practices.

Well, that's mighty white of you, Raven! You personally would not show any invading Islamoid any mercy as stipulated under the Geneva Conventions, but if the Islamoids "Mistreated" captives, you would protest to the invading Islamoids to knock it off!!

Phew!

Now here is something for you to chew on, Raven...real life....

Torture is a tool that frequently works.

Before you piss your panties......In every conflict for 5,000 years pre-Geneva, captured soldiers were offered a Faustian bargain by their captors...who cannot be described as evil per se - just desperate not to die when the enemy can instead - if the tactical intelligence of the captured enemy can be revealed. Which doesn't mean giving them a cigarette or a glass of water and saying they have beautiful eyes of molten hazel and you are their friend - as shells are exploding in the hell around you. No, they were beaten and told they would be beaten some more & killed if they didn't tell what they knew of the enemy order of battle and resources and plans.

The idea that the info is bogus because it is extracted under duress is bogus if you get enemy from similar units and separate them. People questioned seperately can lie, but the lies conflict on comparison with the lies of other captives threatened or beaten into talking. The basic truth is in the areas of mutual agreement between what comes out of the captives mouths. Cover stories common to the captives unpeel rapidly in the hands of good interrogators.

This is well-understood by police forces around the world. Even here, with Constitutional protections and the right to "lawyer-up", for the time being - , the first thing you do with multiple involved parties is to separate them. That way the lies and shallow cover stories quickly fall apart.

There is a myth that the Vietnam POWs completely outfoxed their interrogators under torture. It is a myth we want to keep mostly intact because we honor the POWs. But the truth is not so pleasant....the Vietnamese learned quite a bit about Navy and AF training, Carrier Ops, codes, ECM, how pilots evaded SAMs, dog-fighting tactics, even dirt on one captive told by another captive, even dozens of Americans turned into willing prison snitches.

In the post-Geneva world we have been too nice, considering that by Geneva, we can legally execute unlawful combatants. If we catch 3 guys laying an IED, there is no reason why we can't blow one's head off and wait on the other two to see if they want the same fate or have something important to say to the "nice Americans who they really now admire and wish to help".

The Convention on Torture is also too vague and does not specify what treatment and interrogation crosses the line from punitive or forceful into "torture" - so Lefties are free to use their unfettered imaginations to term sleep depravation, "Koran abuse", eating too many Cheetos, and being aroused by a flirtatious female \guard or contractor "torture". Or anything less than gourmet meals, soccer fields, and guards waiting on their beck and call as being "tantamount to torture".

Raven -

You realize all that "nice guy stuff" goes away if the Islamoids use WMD on us or the infidels elsewhere? 9/11 was bad, Beslan in it's way worse...but a WMD attack will signal it's time to get serious and go after the Islamoids and their terrorist-hugging allies who climbed way out on a limb.

Your friend Dick Durbin is slowly getting it.

Yesterday he was at a rally cheering the (Soviet, Nazi, Kymer-Rouge) troops saying how much he in fact...really loved them....it's nauseating to watch such a despicable anti-American forced to wave the flag he is ashamed of - but once he saw the polls and the people lining up to fuck him in the ass for his seditious comments - he had no choice..

Raven, Shane, KHAG, Gillnitz...

WOW, these comments contain more moonbat guano than I've seen in a LONG time!

What a courageous troll invasion. No doubt these 'bats decided to show how very very brave they are by posting their wisdom (ahem) on this site just so they can go elsewhere and brag.

Here's a pat on the back, you spineless turds. Hopefully this virtual tantrum makes you feel as if you've grown a few pubic hairs. But really, next time send someone from your group who doesn't sound like a drooling moron. If that's possible.

Later,
bbeck

And please make sure Dickie is standing right next to Hillary when she accepts her nomination.

Sean, "The Grauniad"! Crack me up...you read Private Eye too?

Thank you Cedarford. I think we're on the the same side for once.

And Lipstick, I got that mainly from reading sites like Tim Blair's. What's Private Eye?

Trust me I'm not crying my eyes out for any of the guilty parties. I'd just rather catch and torture the guilty parties rather than sheep farmers being sold to us and sent to Gitmo, especially since if I were omniscient enough to be able to prove it one way or the other I'd bet you the same motherf*ckers selling us said sheep farmers are the ones providing material support and protection to Omar and Bin Laden. What I'd really like is to catch the right people, put them on trial in real trials publically, convict them legitimately on the evidence and then hang them by their necks until they rot. (see: what we should have done with Ramzi Yousef, Zach Moussaui and John Lindh.) After all of that, we'd be able to hold our heads up high and gloat that we got the motherfuckers and didn't have to lower ourselves to their level to do it.

Oh, and to whomever said that torture works...it's actually a standing policy from the DCI (That's the head of all US intel.) that it does not, specifically because anyone who being shocked, beaten, burned or psychologically abused will tell you ANYTHING you want to hear to make it stop. They don't provide good intel because the best defense (for any criminal or terror conspiracy) is to keep everybody in the dark about as much as possible about anything that doesn't concern their direct mission. We're not the only ones that learned anything from 5000 years of pre-geneva warfare. (There is some evidence to suggest that some of the hijackers on 9/11 thought they were getting out of it alive, a perposterity of a thought if they had actually known the plan. Further Israeli intel says that their own questioning of caught "suicide attackers" shows that 2 in 5 are just some moron who got handed a box and told to carry it across town while someone else pushes a button when the moron is at checkpoint or on bus.) The best way for a person of limited info to make their torture stop...is to lie. The best way to beat counter-intel is to disinform by lying to your own people so they repeat the lies when caught. Enough people repeat the lie they believe, it not only gets believed by their captors, it becomes intel gospel. This trick is called "Dead Spying" and has been done long enough to have been included in the Art of War by Sun Tzu.

I have great pride in my country; it's why I want policy accountability, because we're better than this comedy of errors being perpetrated on the American people. So to rebut AND support the assertion of Sean M above...fuck anybody that thinks we should lower our standards of behavior to make this War of Terror more convenient.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -Mencken

I'd rather do it right than do it easy.

Actually, I'm here because I have no respect for circle-jerking libs that won't get out here and fight for hearts and minds of the misguided.

Shane,
None of us is "omniscient," so if you've got any evidence that we're jailing a bunch of goatherds without a shred of non-hearsay evidence, we'd all like to see it.

And as for putting mostly stateless terror suspects "on trial in real trials publically," the problem is that they aren't usually caught in US jurisdictions for violating US law. And I'm assuming that by "real trials publically," you mean normal criminal trials. If that's the case, as the administration has argued against, their lawyers are going to be privy to classified info that we definitley don't want to release.

And I don't think that you're actually rebutting anything that I've said, because I've always maintained that nothing we're doing at Gitmo is torture. Coercive? Yes. Tough on the psyche? Yes. Torture? No. I'm sorry, but torture has become another word is losing its meaning because "circle-jerking libs" have begun to use it as a political tool. Much like "fascism." Thanks, Sen. Durbin.

Actually, I'm here because I have no respect for circle-jerking libs that won't get out here and fight for hearts and minds of the misguided.

Get out WHERE, you idiot? Your little crusade on this dismally small Internet soap box isn't exactly Getting Out The Message, you know. If you really wanted to change the world you wouldn't be simultaneously sitting on your azz while blowing smoke up it.

If you think people are actually listening to you then you're dumber than your poltical positions (no small feat). No, Snooks, your posts are getting read here for one reason: target practice. You may scorn your jerking liberal friends cowering in their hidey holes, but at least they're neither stupid nor egotistial enough to think they can come here and do anything more than provide side show entertainment.

Later,
bbeck

I don't have non-hearsay evidence, I have the publically released reports and testimony from commanders that we still don't know who the f some of these people are that we got from Afghani Militias, which would presuppose that the only thing we're holding them on is that someone else caught them and gave them to us with a claim that they caught this or that person doing X or that person is the person we were looking for that did Y. Was the person doing X? Is this really the person that we were looking for in conjunction with Y? Who the F knows? This is a country run by tribal factions and militias where there is a social benefit to turning over the sheep-hurding son of your rival with a spurious claim to a disinvolved third party that said hurder is really a bombthrower. This is especially true since we're paying for the capture of partisans. Who in their right-mind isn't going to sell their captive, but uninvolved, enemy with multiple benefit and no drawback? We're not verifying these claims well enough obviously if 3 years later we can't confirm who they are; it cuts both ways. We waste resources and time on people we don't need to and we mistakenly release partisans that re-enter the field and get shipped back after they shoot at us again.

As to the argument against a real trial, I don't know what these people could know at this point that we'd be so afraid of releasing, we've had them for 3 years. Anything pertaining to them has shot its proverbial load at this point. There is virtually nothing to nothing they can tell us at this point that is still relevant and there is virtually nothing that we have against them that is still fieldworthy. It might be that what we have is from a field agent in deep cover or a involved member of Al-Qaeda that we've flipped but there are already legal protections that we don't have to disclose the ID or any identifiable marker nor make available those people. Also, if they were that deep or generating anything of that much value, we'd have caught OBL by now. We don't have to open the trials to the media or public. Their lawyers are most likely going to be Public Defenders, the fun part there is guess who gets to pick your public defender? Not "you". (This allows that we can at least control who it is that we might have to release sensitive info to. Nobody that is a National Security Risk in any potentiality would have a chance in hell of being appointed.) If you want to represent yourself you have prove competant to self-represent which includes concession that you recognize the validity of the court and it's rules and the jurisdiction of US and (because they were foreign detained)international law. No jihadist is going to do that, both because doing so would be to submit to the USA and because it would mean potentially justifying their status as an unlawful combatant which means forfeiture of Geneva protections and even trial. (As LauraW pointed out, it entitles them to a bullet.) Nobody is that stupid. They can't hide behind legal incompetance in self-representative cases as a defense against self-incrimination because they're the idiot that chose to not have a lawyer and accidentially confessed or laid the groundwork for a question they don't want to answer.

It may be uncouth to suggest but after Abu Ghraib I think the government is more afraid to what detainees might say in their trials about Gitmo than any strategic value. *This is an opinion. I have no proof, just speculation. It doesn't even mean said allegations are true, just scandalous. Lord knows if I was in that situation and thought it would draw some attention and that past actions have lowered the credibility of denial on the US government's part, I'd say every absurd thought that crossed my mind in hopes of creating doubt.*

BBeck: "The journey of a 1000 miles begins with a single step" and "There is no such thing as a small action. Even the smallest pebble may start an avalanche."

Frankly I care not if I am providing value or target practice because the effort is more than most whiny liberal shits are doing. I refuse to blame me for trying. I am egotistical, thankya. It comes from having never lost at Trivial Pursuit.

As far as GOTM, I prefer small groups. You're more fun to work with.

Actually, as I said earlier, I'm all for trying them, convicting them and hanging them. That's a-okay with me. I just want to know that we've got who we think we've got and I'm concerned that we're setting some bad precedent here with our denial of trial and indeterminate detainment. It would really suck if the next time China decides that some diplomat is a spy or some piece of US military equipment and its crew ends up in their hands to declare them enemy combatants and send them to a work-camp forever without any process or trial or means of getting our people back. We'd be f'ed too because we're the ones that wrote that book. "We're allowed to do it and you're not because we said so" doesn't work in international politics.

Damn, Shane, Fred Astaire would be put to shame by the amount of tap dancing you've done.

First of all, when I mentioned "non-hearsay evidence" and cited the fact that you said you weren't "omniscient," I meant that you ought to provide some links backing up your claims. Better links than "Raven" had provided, I might add.

And you shoot yourself in the ass when arguing that we ought to release these guys whose identities we can't verify, while simultaneously pointing out that "we mistakenly release partisans that re-enter the field and get shipped back after they shoot at us again." So, which is it? Keep them on ice (with Korans and Halal-appropriate meals which gain the average detainee 13 lbs. while there) where none of them can do any harm, or release them all, knowing that some of them (after all, making positive IDs is tough with people from the 'Stan--assuming that they're not there from countries like Saudi, with valid passports, but, hey, you didn't mention that group of detainees) will go back and pick up arms against our troops without donning a uniform?

Oh, yes. There's the option of criminal trials. But I argued that classified materials could come out during those trials. And you rebutted my argument with the following:

I don't know what these people could know at this point that we'd be so afraid of releasing, we've had them for 3 years. Anything pertaining to them has shot its proverbial load at this point.

We don't have to open the trials to the media or public. Their lawyers are most likely going to be Public Defenders, the fun part there is guess who gets to pick your public defender? Not "you".

As for your final graph:

This is an opinion. I have no proof, just speculation. It doesn't even mean said allegations are true, just scandalous. Lord knows if I was in that situation and thought it would draw some attention and that past actions have lowered the credibility of denial on the US government's part, I'd say every absurd thought that crossed my mind in hopes of creating doubt.

Frankly I care not if I am providing value or target practice because the effort is more than most whiny liberal shits are doing.

You seem to operate under the false belief that you are not a whiny liberal shit. Have no doubts about it, you are a whiny liberal shit. No matter how many times you tell us you just want to catch the bad guys and hang them, you cannot disguise your true whiny liberal shit colors.

You Win. (Seriously, my hearts not in it anymore.) I'm tired. It's 4am. Goodnight.

The Fisking of Raven
by Tongueboy

Anyone who supports even the idea of a Guantanemo Bay prison deserves to be sent to one. What's wrong with Gitmo? Just about everything. Rather than list the abuses we've heard about, abhorrent behavior on the part of our own troops and intelligence people, perhaps it's a good idea here to examine the standard arguments for why we should torture our captives.

Who’s talking about torture? This argument doesn’t even qualify as a decent strawman. It’s like one of those posts out in a cornfield with a few whisps of straw attached; you know it was once a strawman until the rains washed it away.

1."It's the only way to break hardened terrorists." Actually, it isn't. Experts in the field (documented all over the net) assert that torture rarely proves effective. If you want a jihadist to talk, you need something akin to a deprogrammer. You need to gain the person's trust, and in most cases a cigarette, a glass of water and a calm discussion will do the trick. And you get intel that you can bank on.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to pass along this little nugget to the appropriate interrogations units; they would be ever so grateful. After all, they dislike administering broom straws under the fingernails and genital shock treatments just as much as the jihadists dislike receiving them.

2."Gitmo's great because it's outside our legal system." This is probably the worst idea of the bunch. Each of the prisoners at Gitmo deserves a full review of the reasons for his incarceration.

Do you mean THIS review? Oh, wait: I’ve got that wrong; there’s not one but TWO reviews, if I can believe what Amnesty International has to say.

If we can't prove the individual is a terrorist, then we ought to return him to his home.

Almost 1/3 of detainees HAVE ALREADY been returned home. With decidedly mixed results, by the way. What spiderhole have you been living in the last 2 years?

If we can't prove that a detainee is a terrorist, then why are we holding him? The burden of proof is on the captor. So far, it's becoming very clear that some percentage of the people we've locked up down there are entirely innocent.

We are holding them for the very same reason we hold some domestic criminal defendants without bail; there is a reasonable probably that if released they will flee the jurisdiction and commit more of the atrocities that landed them in jail in the first place. Now, I’ve got a deal for you: I will trade you “burden of proof is on the captor” for “Raven will take full responsibility, including the possibility of imprisonment or death, for any terrorist or criminal actions undertaken by any individual who is released summarily without either a Combat Status Review Panel review or a Military Commission Trial.”

3."We have to keep them at Gitmo or else they'll come at us again." Well, as in point 2, we don't know how many of these people would qualify as terrorists.

This is incoherent nonsense. “We don’t know how many would qualify as terrorists”? Gosh, I guess it all depends on if you use Merriam-Websters or American Heritage, I suppose.

But of the genuine enemy combatants, they were probably coming at us with AK-47s, maybe RPGs in some cases, but they're unlikely to be a threat to any of us here at home. These aren't the 9/11 people.

Of course they are a threat to us here at home; 19 of their effing comrades had a little party about 3 ½ years ago that got out of hand. Then some more of their golfing buddies mishandled their golf clubs in Bali and Madrid: OOOPS! Not to mention their frat buddies who staged a wild kegger in Beslan; now THAT was a real hootenanny.

4."We're sending a message to the terrorists. They're frightened of Gitmo." Maybe they are. But America has traditionally led by example, and here's where we need to adhere to the Geneva Conventions more than ever before.

Under the Geneva Conventions, legal combatants may be detained for the duration of a conflict but are entitled to no other legal remedies or hearings during detainment. You appear to be advocating giving these illegal combatants more due process rights than are allowed legal combatants from countries who are signatories of the Geneva Conventions. You might want to rethink your position on this; why should troops from signatory countries refrain from the atrocities commit by Islamofascist thugs if their due process rights during detention will actually improve if they commit them? Perhaps you would have lined the jihadists up against a wall and shot them as spies rather than hold them for interrogation, as an alternative?

When our people get captured, and we learn that our sons and daughters are being brutalized in torture camps, we won't have the ability to protest. No POW can expect anything but a hard time in the best of circumstances, but they should never be stripped naked and tortured. Rumsfeld has established a very dangerous policy.

Riiiight. I get it: be nice to their prisoners and they’ll be nice to ours. The definition of nice being that the jihadists will use a sharpened ax fresh from the local hardware store for a clean and quick decapitation rather than a rusty, dull saw laying about in Grandpa Ahmed’s tool shed all these years. I lovin’ it!

5. "At least we're getting results!" From whom? People we've had in custody for 3 years and running? Whatever they know, it's stale and likely to be of little use.

I agree. Keeping all those German, Italian and Japanese prisoners was a complete waste of time and resources that could have been better spent on diplomatic overtures to Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo. Hell, Hitler maintained the German justice system under Nazi rule; the least Roosevelt could have done if he didn’t want to summarily release enemy soldiers was to institute, oh I don’t know, a COMBAT STATUS REVIEW PANEL or a MILITARY COMMISSION TRIAL for those poor souls.

As an American, I want to be able to look at my country, my government, and my military with pride. I want to know that we uphold the highest standards of human rights and decency, and that we're challenging the rest of the world to meet our standard. It is simply appalling that we're sinking to the level of the KGB here, that we're showing all the hallmarks of a totalitarian state. Anybody who thinks this is a necessary or positive development is someone to be pitied.

Now look what you’ve done: you made baby Jesus cry! Jiminy Christmas, just reading this drivel made my head unconsciously drop into “I’m Sorry” tilt mode. Wait, that’s it! If this dreck can move even a right-wing death beast like me, surely it will prick the hearts of the poor misguided souls who only THINK they want to kill all Americans. I will dedicate my remaining days to spreading Raven’s message to Jihadist websites near and far. Perhaps, just maybe, we can end this senseless cycle of violence. Now let’s all join hands for a chorus of “Michael Row The Boat”. The tears are just bursting from eyes as I write this; I simply can’t go on…..

Have no idea why those links didn't work.

THIS

TWO

So now it is being taken as a given by some on the left that we are torturing people. To them the accusation by AI, Durbin, and the rest of the hate Bush crew, amounts to actual solid proof of what they already suspect. The truth has no meaning to these people, as they will gladly hide it to meet their political objectives of returning to power.

I say the best way to punish this behavior is to sweep the '06 and '08 elections, so that while the press might still give them a voice, they will have no power to back it up with. I look forward to helping that happen.

It occurs to me that even if I believed Shane really would be satisfied with trials and hangings, I would still ignore his ranting because I am sick to death of fabrications. political opportunism, disgusting hyperbole, knee-jerk defense of the indefensible and gotcha politics from the Left.

I wonder if these "moralists" realize how much they have been hurt on this issue by the many times their ideological brethren have cried wolf. I wonder if they care. This much is certain: If they really cared about anything but Getting Bush, they'd get their facts straight, they'd define what coercive methods they'd be satisfied with and they'd say definitively whether they want American-style due process for unlawful combatants.

I was gonna jump in but you did a better job than I could.

Thank you Cedarford. I think we're on the the same side.

This much is certain: If they really cared about anything but Getting Bush, they'd get their facts straight, they'd define what coercive methods they'd be satisfied with and they'd say definitively whether they want American-style due process for unlawful combatants.

Great point! It proves they're driven by hatred rather than any benficent or lofty goals like fair play. If they were, they'd have serious alternatives rather that a constant shitsplash from their mouths.

Here are two more stakes in the heart of Dr. Raven Darktalonblood:

Gitmo serviceman #1.

Gitmo serviceman #2.

I believe these men long before I'd believe anything ginned up by the ACLU on the behalf of the New York Times, et al.

From one of the "torture" articles (both articles describe the same set of documents):

The White House denied a suggestion in an FBI e-mail dated May 22, 2004, that Bush personally signed off on certain interrogation techniques in an executive order.

That's hilarious stuff right there. Blows any credibility that the ACLU may have had on this issue right out of the water.

I really like Lilek's assertion that Gitmo is "a facility the United States built to see if the left would ever care about human rights abuses in Cuba."

That guy can write

Regarding the meme that torture is the way to get information I offer two WWII counter examples: U.S. Marine Major Sherwood Moran and the Lufwaffe's Hans Joachim Scharff. There is a good article in the May Atlantic Monthly (not free) on these two highly successful interrogators. Major Moran was interrogating Japanese prisioners, a class that one would expect to be quite hard to reach. Here is what Maj. Moran had to say about his technique:
I often tell a prisoner right at the start what my attitude is! I consider a prisoner (i.e. a man who has been captured and disarmed and in a perfectly safe place) as out of the war, out of the picture, and thus, in a way, not an enemy … Notice that … I used the word "safe." That is the point: get the prisoner to a safe place, where even he knows … that it is all over. Then forget, as it were, the "enemy" stuff, and the "prisoner" stuff. I tell them to forget it, telling them I am talking as a human being to a human being.

The key to both of these master interrogator's techniques was genuine connection with their subjects; knowing the language and culture, connecting on a genuine personal level. Both of them viewed coercive techniques to be counter-productive, that inflicting humiliation or pain simply reinforced the prisioner's awareness of the interrogators as the enemy, that the prisioner had valuable information the enemy wanted, and that resistance was heroic. OTOH, talking to, caring for, and connecting with the prisioner broke down these barriers and led the prisioners to "share their story" with the interrogators.

Further, torture impacts the torturers, both the individuals and the culture that accepts torture. Jean Maria Arrigo, Ph.D. argues, in A Consequentialist Argument against Torture Interrogation of Terrorists, that not only is torture ineffective, but it harms the society that accepts its use. Society is harmed because instutions such as the medical profession, psychological professionals and police are required to cooperate in effective torture creating ethical crises. It subsumes research into subjects like pain management from focusing on relieving suffering to more effectively inflicting suffering. Effective torture also requires the establishment of professional torturers, with obvious long-term personal and societal consequences.

Humiliation and physical pain are not only wrong morally, wrong for society's long term health, but also not the most effective way of gaining the information we require. Just say no to torture.

That Lileks piece is AWESOME

"Just say no to torture."

Just say yes to aggressive airconditioning.

I should make clear, I am not on board with Durbin or others who wish to conflate what is occurring in Gitmo with Soviet Gulags or Nazi death camps. I am responding to the arguments advanced in this site favoring the humiliation and torture of detainees.

I'm quite sure I can find just as many interrogators who believe otherwise, vonK, but that isn't really at issue here. I don't think anybody's as much advocating torture so much as scoffing at the claims that it won't work for some dippy-ass reason.

It defies reason that a prisoner would lie to stop the torture. How many times would that actually work? If they really wanted the pain to stop, why not tell the truth?

I can think of individual incidents that could be successful if the captive managed to clam up long enough for the attack to be carried out, but if they don't want the living shit kicked out of them--if they really just want to stop it--they'll tell the truth.

I would be difficult to convince otherwise.

"The journey of a 1000 miles begins with a single step" and "There is no such thing as a small action. Even the smallest pebble may start an avalanche."

Gosh, not a single word I said sunk in. What...a...shock. I'll try again...

THIS BOARD is not the start of ANY journey, Dummy.

There may be no such thing as a small action, but there is certainly a thing as INEFFECTIVE action, as you are going out of your way to demonstrate.

To consider yourself a "pebble" is to overestimate what you are and insults the pebbles of this world.

The only impact you want to make is for the sake of attention, or else you'd be doing something more productive than getting laughed at. You're not fooling anyone.

Frankly I care not if I am providing value or target practice because the effort is more than most whiny liberal shits are doing.

Oh, you care not? Is that sentence structure injected to conjure pretentious images, or do you just have a thing for short green Jedi?

Actually, you liberal $hit, the ONLY difference between you and your buddies is that they're not wasting their time as much as you are. Wake up and smell the lack of impact you will EVER have, provided you can smell anything over the waste you're shoveling.

Later,
bbeck

Effective torture also requires the establishment of professional torturers, with obvious long-term personal and societal consequences.

Humiliation and physical pain are not only wrong morally, wrong for society's long term health, but also not the most effective way of gaining the information we require. Just say no to torture.

vonkreedon

If torture doesn't work, why has mankind always relied on it? Do you think the collective experience of mankind is so untrue, and that Liberals have the Golden Torch of Wisdom? Those who claim that torture doesn't work don't know what they're talking about. As one who almost drowned a couple of times I can personally testify that water torture, if done right, works. And if I bend your arm behind your back enough, I can get you to reveal things to me you wouldn't reveal under any other circumstances, especially if you know that I'd just as soon keep bending just to hear the pops as I break all your joints, pull it out of the socket, and begin again with the other arm, and then your fingers, knees, legs, etc. Everyone on earth knows this, why must we engage in silly arguments like this? One may quibble about methods and their efficacy, but no one can deny that torture works and if it didn't no one would do it.

Now let me ask you a question: If the terrorists had all of your family, all of your friends and everyone you ever loved and were demanding that the US pull out of Iraq by next week or everyone of them would be tortured to death one at a time in front of them all, and then beheaded and dismembered, would you still be so keen not to torture the one we caught during the taking of the hostages? Would you still "say no to torture?" I doubt it.

vonkreedon

Let me take a 3 inch grinder and put it on your toes straight until I grind them into mush, bones and all. Then let me continue up your leg until you talk or lose all you limbs that way. And let me make perfectly clear to you that I want nothing more than to torture you to death and that the only thing that'll stop my delight in my sadism is for you to reveal secrets to me. And if you lie I'll just begin again until either there's no more of you to grind up, or you tell me what I want to know. No matter who you are, the sight of your body being ground into bloody mush would make anyone reveal their secrets, let alone the pain!

You may argue over the efficacy of methods of torture, but no one can claim it doesn't work.

You've got to trust somebody. Somebody has to make the rules. Sorry, I trust the military and the right sort of CIA agent more on this point.

I agree, you have to trust somebody to make these kinds of decisions. I just happen to trust James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin a lot more than I do George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Alberto Gonzales. Sorry about that ...

I posted last night that the true purpose of Gitmo was terror. Terror can take many forms, it is not just crazed bombers. In its most useful form terror in the form propaganda can be used on both the enemy and on your own people (just look at the length of this thread). Physical torture is not an effective way of gathering useful info, Shane pointed this out in an earlier post. Physical torture is used so extensively because it creates fear, and fear is an effective means of control. This is why I believe we released some of the prisoners, just how did we manage to recapture a good number of them ? Could it be luck, coincidence, I doubt it. Could it be these guys were micro- chipped (the same $10 chips we put in dogs routinely)., to what end would we do this. What people don't seem to realise is that Akmed the goat-herd and Akmed the jihadi are frequently one and the same. It wooks like this you capture Akmed, ship him thousands of miles away , rough him up, and then send him home to spread the the word ,only to reel him back in when convenient.How else would word about Gitmo be spred?
The fact that everyone seems to be dancing around is that counter-terrorism is terror and torture is apart of that. If you support this understand what you are supporting and stop denying .

"counter-terrorism is terror"

This has got to be the moonbattiest thing I've ever seen posted on any blog at any time.

The problem with liberals like Von Kreedon, Shane, and the amply Fisked Raven is they formulate an abstract ideal that defies all logic - torture NEVER works - and cling to it, demand others join in their official "Right-thinking Party Line" on the topic. Worse, they say who gets to DEFINE what torture is is the captured unlawful combatant terrorist.....as part of the boundless package of civil liberties and rights the America-haters are determined to give them. Also, their ridiculous "slippery slope" arguments..

And a segue` on Lileks is mandatory. It is so telling that the Lefties moan about the non-existent oppression of librarians under the Patriot Act, but never say a peep about the 91 librarians arrested and imprisoned by Castro for "wrong-thinking" or their silence about detainee rights on the OTHER side of the GITMO fence.

1. I don't advocate the worst, most extreme forms of torture in almost any circumstance short of desperation to stop a ticking WMD bomb, or any form of torture of legitimate POWs who were adhering to Geneva rules when captured, but I am strongly in favor of force-using interrogation of unlawful enemy combatants. The fact is - objectively speaking - that pain and fear are tools an interrogator can get results from as well as use of rewards. Human behavior is not just conditioned by desire for rewards, but a desire to avoid punishments. And the lure of rewards is even more limited with Islamoids than with other nasty enemies of the past. Hard for a cigarette, an offer of money, and kindly words to break a man trained all his life to believe that killing infidels and never betraying others on Jihad automatically entitles him to Paradise, booze, and 72 Virgins. That was discovered by Americans in the field - that none of the customary rewards and standard interrogation methods worked on Islamoids.

2. Torture or use of fear works. Histories of wars are replete with accounts of how brutality succeeds. Spies caught behind lines spilling the beans immediately after they watched one in their suffer a slow hanging, lest they suffer the same fate. Nazi saboteurs singing to avoid execution in the UK or the USA. Whole resistance networks broken by skillful use of punishment. Intelligence windfalls harvested from our American POWs in Korea and Vietnam. Not saying any of it is right or desirable, but in "them vs. us" situations, the rational choice is "us".

3. The myth that it is better to let unlawful enemy combatants just sit in a cell in silence rather than force testimony...because of the notion that the prisoner is automatically more intelligent than the questioners and will always dupe them with clever lies that fool the interrogators completely. Again, a myth...because of areas of commonality that can be cross-checked...lies are detected...while truthful answers are identifiable from repetition by different suspects. Liberals ignore the whole assumption of WHY spy or saboteur networks are arranged as cells, with cutouts, and timed signals. The assumption is that only a short window exists between capture of one of their members and when the truth is beaten out of them. This is why the Communists, terror groups, even our military makes efforts to compartmentalize critical mission knowlege and organizational knowledge.

4. Leaving it to America's enemies to define what torture is - the real combatants or their sympathizers within NGOs like Amnesty or the Democratic Party - ensures that torture is defined as shit like "Koran abuse", eating junk food like Doritos, sexual temptation by Godless American females, sleep depravation, threats, close contact with a Jew (Jews to an observant Muslim - are high on their list of najis, filthy contaminating things like feces, unclean animals, Christians, urine, sweat of an apostate. Jews and feces top the list.)

5. As for slippery slope arguments - friends of the radical Islamic enemy take two roads. The first is that "torturing" Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11
matermind to ID associates and reveal all looming plots (which he did once we broke him) inevitably leads to "torturing" gays or soccer Moms. The second slippery slope argument is the "taint" of forcing criminals or enemy to reveal what they know first taints the torturer with eternal torment and that shame and torment eventually spreads throughout society and infects it. Which is patent nonsense.

And I can vouch for that with a personal tale.

I had a great uncle who was a police detective in the days before the ACLU took over the Courts. He and 3 others solved a serial killer case in the early 50s. They had limited evidence, no body, in one abduction seen by two women of "ill repute" who's streetwalker galfriend was hauled off by a guy they couldn't ID, but they got his car make. Cops only had the car, some blood in his car, and a certianty the guy was the perp - so they beat the location of the body out of him. The guy had abducted and raped then knifed her. But when they went for the body, they found 2 other shallow graves. Two more woman's corpses. They beat those names out of him. Then got a complete history of the guy and woman who vanished around where he lived and beat the locations of 6 more woman's bodies out of him. Most were prostitutes, but a few were just regular women he snatched off the street. Guy hanged himself in his jail cell before trial. None of what they did bothered my great uncle or his partners in the slightest afterwards. They were just good cops that "bent the rules" a bit in a good cause. Damage to society? Nil.

Then MON explain what counter terrorism is , baklava socials?What do the terms Shock and Awe describe? I stated in a factual sense what is happening here, I did not either condem or endorse it, and yes humanitarian efforts can also be part of counter terror, but those only really work on those not yet indoctonated by the other side.

"Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.

John Adams, July 17th, 1775

Stupid Liberal!!! Why does he hate America?

"Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever persuasion, religious or political."

Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, March 4th, 1801

What a 'terrorist-hugger'

"Give me isolated-quotes-that-don't-make-any-sense-in-the-context-of-the-current-discussion or give me an atomic wedgie."

"Minuteman" Adam - June 23, 2005

My nineteen-year old brother is in CA right now doing his Desert Warfare training with the USMC. He didn't care who was President when he signed up, and didn't care that we were at war when he signed up.
He hates the desert wasteland.
He will be going to Iraq in August.

Bill Clinton can drop bombs all over the fucking place, killing thousands, and we hear nary a peep from the Left. But let Bush imprison actual terrorists in Hotel Gitmo, they go ballistic.

Unlike my brother, a nineteen year old MAN, the leftists in this country are whiny crybabies who care more for their political 'side' than for their country.

Its OK, you guys. Just continue to whine and kick your feet and backseat drive even though you don't know what you're talking about.
The big people will still protect you anyway.

KAHG -- Your point was that Gitmo's purpose is to "terrorize" the terrorists, and then to release these "terrorized" terrorists back into their communities so that they can recount the "terror" that they have been subjected to. What are they going to recount? That their rice pilaf was luke warm? That the AC was a tad high? Gitmo is a complete failure if that is what its purpose is. The blue thumb of an Iraq woman voter is much more terrifying to the islamofascists.

Adam - Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.

John Adams, July 17th, 1775

Sure Adam, there must be an explaination for all the liberty "lost" in the Revolutionary War with Loyalists being chucked out, the suspension of habeas corpus and the ultimate loss of liberty signified by the Draft, the loss of all those sacred liberties we endured in the 20th Century Wars and persecuting a pack of Jewish Communists just because they were loyal to the Soviet Union. Now our Hitleresque crusade against innocent Muslim freedom fighters. Oh, how were Adams forever lost liberties regained????

"Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever persuasion, religious or political."

Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, March 4th, 1801

Jefferson never extended that to Muslim terrorists and pirates of the Barbary Coast. He directed the Navy to ensure we pay not one penny in tribute, and to "hunt them down and kill them wherever they are". Which we did, with no luxury of Gitmo life as an alternative to them dying on the shores of Tripoli or drowning as their vessels sank under gunfire. The British Royal Navy in that period did us one better - they liked to pull into an Islamoid port with a few Islamoid terrorists saved as examples and strangulation-hanged them in front of Islamoid crowds.

What a 'terrorist-hugger'

Adam, look in a mirror.

Anyone obsessed with giving "universal civil liberties" out to the enemy
has an excellent start as a terrorist-hugger.