[maxiep]

Originally Posted by STOMP

I'm sure he knows about a lot of things I don't, but I'm not taking his word on this any more then you need to take any candidate's "trust me" word on any issue.

I think you misunderstand the point I was trying to make. Sometimes I don't do a very good job at relating my thoughts, so let me try again. What I'm saying is that I believe John McCain has a line where he believes interrogation techniques become torture. Having experienced real torture, I'm certain he has a strong opinion as to where that line is. To him it's not a theoretical exercise; for five years of his life it was all too real.

Originally Posted by STOMP

I'm very against us forcing false confessions out of detainees or nudging closer/stepping over the perceived line of whats technically alloud.

No one in their right mind would be for the application of pain and suffering for the goal for "forcing false confessions". It's one of the reasons real torture is so notoriously ineffective--at some point people will say whatever they think you want to hear to make the torture stop. From my friends who have experienced the fun and games at Camp Peary, they say there are several techniques other than physical torture that are far more effective.

Originally Posted by STOMP

I'm much more aligned with George Washington on this sort of thing and believe continuing a torture policy makes us less safe in the big picture.

STOMP

And you're going to have to define for me what exactly our "torture policy" is, since that sounds more like a bumper-sticker than a real description of what we're trying to do. As for the current policy's efficacy, there hasn't been a successful attack on home soil since September 11, 2001. I would find it hard to believe that they haven't tried nor that we haven't received intelligence from these prisoners that have helped us stop attacks. Ergo, I believe our current policy makes us safer.

As for what George Washington thought, we agree with him 100% still. However, you'll note that he was referring to uniformed soldiers. In fact, in his day it was even easier, because they wore brightly colored coats. Terrorists can't be classified the same way as uniformed soldiers. They hide among innocents and kill indiscriminantly. They only asked to be treated like those in uniform when they're captured.

[STOMP]

Originally Posted by maxiep

I think you misunderstand the point I was trying to make. Sometimes I don't do a very good job at relating my thoughts, so let me try again. What I'm saying is that I believe John McCain has a line where he believes interrogation techniques become torture. Having experienced real torture, I'm certain he has a strong opinion as to where that line is. To him it's not a theoretical exercise; for five years of his life it was all too real.

you did fine articulating your position the first time, but I disagree. To this day McCain harbors intense hatred towards his captors. I think we've got the same dynamic of the child who is beaten who is then more likely to beat children. I don't want to continue this cycle... many military folks agree with me here.

No one in their right mind would be for the application of pain and suffering for the goal for "forcing false confessions". It's one of the reasons real torture is so notoriously ineffective--at some point people will say whatever they think you want to hear to make the torture stop. From my friends who have experienced the fun and games at Camp Peary, they say there are several techniques other than physical torture that are far more effective.

false confessions is what you get when using waterboarding and like techniques... we're on the same page there right? Using these sorts of techniques humiliates/breaks the prisoners we're detaining whether they've been involved in acts against us or not. It also instills understandable hatred in those we're trying to win the hearts and minds of and supposedly trying to lead to freedom. If thats not the goal, then it would only seem logically to use different tactics/methods.

And you're going to have to define for me what exactly our "torture policy" is, since that sounds more like a bumper-sticker than a real description of what we're trying to do. As for the current policy's efficacy, there hasn't been a successful attack on home soil since September 11, 2001. I would find it hard to believe that they haven't tried nor that we haven't received intelligence from these prisoners that have helped us stop attacks. Ergo, I believe our current policy makes us safer.

You earlier contended that the info gathered by these methods can't be trusted, now you're hanging your hat on it for keeping us safe? Sorry but I don't buy your deductions here at all... I'm sure you're aware that many/most Americans and military higher ups don't either. Our policy regarding torture is that we don't torture, but of course we've had to redefine what torture is to accomplish this stretch. We're doing things that most of the world (including us prior to a few years back) finds reprehensible. Our government has prosecuted and imprisoned it's own soldiers for doing what is now policy under Bush. We have become the tyrants.

As for what George Washington thought, we agree with him 100% still. However, you'll note that he was referring to uniformed soldiers. In fact, in his day it was even easier, because they wore brightly colored coats. Terrorists can't be classified the same way as uniformed soldiers. They hide among innocents and kill indiscriminantly. They only asked to be treated like those in uniform when they're captured.

thats splitting hairs. Nearly all of the fighting thats going on in Iraq outside of our guys is being done by people not wearing uniforms... much like how much of the our revolutionary soldiers fought without uniforms but were tortured and killed after being captured by the British. This is weak reasoning to justify torturing people for dubious info especially considering it's been proven beyond a shadow of the doubt that we've been guilty of doing this to people who aren't hiding among the innocents but are the innocents themselves. Thats a big part of the reason why overwhelmingly the Iraqi "innocents" are terrified/hate us. Like McCain, that hate isn't going away any time soon.

I truly am in complete disagreement with what you're contending... continue if you like, but realize you'll not be persuading me on this. I've read/talked to vets/done plenty research coming up with my opinion. I find it disgusting that this is done in our name and feel it is completely unproductive to stabilizing the region and our future. We've gotten ourselves into quite a situation over there, but I see no sense in compounding the problem.

STOMP

[STOMP]

btw, I'm about to leave town for the weekend and will be away from a computer. Sorry to post and run.

STOMP

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by STOMP

you did fine articulating your position the first time, but I disagree. To this day McCain harbors intense hatred towards his captors. I think we've got the same dynamic of the child who is beaten who is then more likely to beat children. I don't want to continue this cycle... many military folks agree with me here.

You know he went to Hanoi a few years ago and talked with several of the people that used to be his captors, right? He's made his peace with those people as hatred and revenge are self-defeating emotions. He has been out front of what torture is, and what it isn't. Of those "many military folks" that agree with you, how many of them have been subjected to torture?

Originally Posted by STOMP

false confessions is what you get when using waterboarding and like techniques... we're on the same page there right?

No, you get information. We're not looking for confessions; we're looking to uncover intelligence.

Originally Posted by STOMP

Using these sorts of techniques humiliates/breaks the prisoners we're detaining whether they've been involved in acts against us or not. It also instills understandable hatred in those we're trying to win the hearts and minds of and supposedly trying to lead to freedom. If thats not the goal, then it would only seem logically to use different tactics/methods.

We didn't try to win the hearts and minds of the SS; it wasn't obtainable. You're never going to change the mind of the true believers. I understand the idea of wanting to be loved, but sometimes you becomed loved by winning. Not everyone is going to love us. For certain, the people that are part of Al-Qaeda aren't ever going to love us. We represent the one thing they cannot abide: Freedom of thought.

Originally Posted by STOMP

You earlier contended that the info gathered by these methods can't be trusted, now you're hanging your hat on it for keeping us safe? Sorry but I don't buy your deductions here at all... I'm sure you're aware that many/most Americans and military higher ups don't either. Our policy regarding torture is that we don't torture, but of course we've had to redefine what torture is to accomplish this stretch.

You misunderstood my point. Physical torture that permanently disfigures is notoriously ineffective. By all accounts, that's not what we use. Again, we're not looking for them to admit to crimes; we're looking for them to give us information. You don't get that information by being sadistic. You do that by breaking their routine, creating conditions of physical discomfort and emotional distress, and then rewarding them. It's an art of know when to offer the carrot and when to apply the stick.

Originally Posted by STOMP

We're doing things that most of the world (including us prior to a few years back) finds reprehensible.

Who? The French? The Chinese? The Russians? The Spanish? I'd look to Algeria, Tibet, Chechnya and their own Civil War before I looked at them as moral arbiters. And if you think we haven't tortured people under every single Administration in the 20th Century to obtain information, then you're being naive.

Originally Posted by STOMP

Our government has prosecuted and imprisoned it's own soldiers for doing what is now policy under Bush. We have become the tyrants.

Can you offer specific examples as to which soldiers were proscecuted and for which crimes that are now policy? The soldiers at Abu Ghraib were proscecuted for their actions. As for us becoming the tyrants, I don't buy that moral equivalence argument. These aren't innocent people just living their lives; they're terrorists who will commit every obsenity known to mankind in the name of Allah.

Originally Posted by STOMP

thats splitting hairs. Nearly all of the fighting thats going on in Iraq outside of our guys is being done by people not wearing uniforms... much like how much of the our revolutionary soldiers fought without uniforms but were tortured and killed after being captured by the British.

It's not splitting hairs. In fact, it's an extremely important point. The Geneva Convention defines combatant as the following (with my emphasis added):

Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.

Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

The forces we're fighting in Iraq do not fall under those conditions. Yet we extend many of the covenants of the Geneva Convention to them anyway. As for your comparison of these people to our soldiers and militia fighting in the Revolutionary War, it should be noted that the first Geneva Convention was in 1949, not 1776. I would hope we have made progress since then.

Originally Posted by STOMP

This is weak reasoning to justify torturing people for dubious info especially considering it's been proven beyond a shadow of the doubt that we've been guilty of doing this to people who aren't hiding among the innocents but are the innocents themselves. Thats a big part of the reason why overwhelmingly the Iraqi "innocents" are terrified/hate us. Like McCain, that hate isn't going away any time soon.

Again, this is why the definition of "torture" is so important. Please don't create the strawman that I'm defending methods used by Torquemada; I'm not. As for making mistakes; it happens and it's regrettable. However, you don't get sent to Gitmo or picked up and interrogated on a whim. We have limited resources, and we have to ration them. As for the Iraqis, I'd like to see some hard numbers to justify the term "overwhelmingly". As for that hate, the Germans and Japanese hated us too. It's amazing what the implementation of democracy and civil rights will do for a people's attitudes. I do agree, however, that it's going to take time.

Originally Posted by STOMP

I truly am in complete disagreement with what you're contending... continue if you like, but realize you'll not be persuading me on this. I've read/talked to vets/done plenty research coming up with my opinion.

No worries. I felt as if your points needed to be addressed. It's an interesting and necessary debate.

Originally Posted by STOMP

I find it disgusting that this is done in our name and feel it is completely unproductive to stabilizing the region and our future. We've gotten ourselves into quite a situation over there, but I see no sense in compounding the problem.

STOMP

Again, you're going to have to specifically define what "this" is. It seems to me that the word "torture" is being redefined the longer this war continues. Twenty years ago, few would have called tactics such as sleep deprivation or making a room too cold or too hot as torture, but recently I've read both of those applications referred to as such.

And no worries about posting and running. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. It's nice that some of us actually have lives!