This true or not?

[Bill Glasheen]

Ian

Wow, you sure ask a lot of questions, and I assume most - if not all - were meant for me.

Thanks for dropping the ECT therapy analogy. We can take it to another thread (maybe on my forum) if you wish. It lost its value as an analogy, but not as a subject of medical interest. And given how relevent intractable depression is to PTSD (which is a consequence of killing or assault), I think it a worthy topic.

"In Gitmo, Geneva Convention rules do not apply"

"Why? Because you said it's so?"

Comment?

This is something for the international law experts, Ian. It is complicated, and lawyers smarter than you or I on these particulars are fighting it out.

I will however leave you with two quotes.

The Taliban did not wear distinctive signs, insignias, symbols or uniforms ... To the contrary, far from seeking to distinguish themselves from the civilian population of Afghanistan, they sought to blend in with civilian non-combatants, hiding in mosques and populated areas. They [were] not organised in military units, as such, with identifiable chains of command; indeed, al-Qaeda forces made up portions of their forces.

- Rumsfeld.

The laws of war essentially propose a contract to combatants: if you observe these rules of civilised warfare, then you will be treated in a civilised manner. The conditional nature of legitimate combatant status is reflected in the text of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. A common article two of those conventions states that parties to the treaty are under no legal obligation to apply their terms to non-parties who do not themselves abide by the law of armed conflict.

The men detained at Guantanamo were captured on the battlefield while fighting for organisations that systematically violated the most basic tenets of the law of war. Captured al-Qaeda fighters were drawn from the ranks of an organisation that sees the deliberate destruction of women, children and the elderly as a legitimate tactic.

- Ted Lapkin

So, what laws should apply? Good question. Is torture a good idea? Probably not. Do we need to set an example? Yes, when it is smart to do so. I certainly would want those who might judge our culture and political ways to look to us as a beacon of reasonable and humane behavior.

But we are under no obligation to treat people in a manner that puts our own population in harm's way. To follow any convention that does so - because the terrorists know we might be hamstrung by them and so will use them against us - is IMO foolish.

These are new grounds in international law being broken. We need to tread carefully.

Will query: if we have "truth serum," why was it national policy to subvert international and national law on torture?

Well, that was rhetorical. It must be that the truth serum doesn't work.

I'm not sure what you mean by all this, Ian, unless it's just your own caustic sense of humor.

As in medicine, nothing is 100%. I'm surprised that they get ANY reliable information out of these detainees, even if you WERE to use no-holds-barred and the best methods available.

However, necessity is the mother of invention. I'd be surprised if we didn't see a boom in information-extraction (intelligence) methods in the near future. And I'm not just talking about detainees under the bright light.

And one more thing, Ian. The United Nations Convention against Torture defines torture rather narrowly, describing it as the intentional infliction of “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental” for political or military reasons. So if you're going to use that word, you'll have to justify its use in the particular context referenced.

Is it really possible that Durbin's moronic comments are damaging to our PR, but our own actual excesses do not?

You'll need to be specific, Ian.

Abu Ghraib was the poster child of bad U.S. prison management. The parties involved are getting their just desserts. In the short run this was damaging, but in the long run, people may see the rule of law prevail. That would be a novelty in Iraq, given the extreme (to put it mildly) methods used by the Baathists. The net effect paradoxically may be positive.

Gitmo is evolving. As long as reasonable people debate the issues and work for just solutions, then the greater good will prevail.

Meanwhile, al qaeda members are being trained in how to alledge "abuse" if taken captive. It's all part of their own psyops methods. Did you know that?

You seemed to kind of like it when Bush asked Al Qaida to "bring it on,"

I did?

However, are you going to deny our own warriors their bravado? That's part of the culture of war, Ian. Let soldiers be soldiers. If intimidation prevents violence and death, well then so be it.

and were forgiving when he called our war a "crusade."

You are mistaken, Ian. Quite the contrary, I called the statement foolish.

You must be confusing me with someone else.

- Bill

[IJ]

1) As far as blending into the crowd and skipping uniforms, we could have said the same about our enemy in Vietnam (at times), and I don't recall suspension of the Geneva convention occuring then.

2) "if you observe these rules of civilised warfare, then you will be treated in a civilised manner."

When someone says this, and goes on to say the rules don't apply, its inherent in the argument that your goal is to behave in an uncivilized manner. Right? Now, if I am attacked or put in a sticky situation, in war, or on the street, or whatever, I might do uncivilized things to survive, and I see nothing wrong with that. Naturally, we inflict pain and death on the battlefield. But I don't think its wise, particularly because the torture is not thought to be that effective and is near universally condemned, to make uncivilized behavior national policy for dealing with detainees. The whole argument that if someone else is bad you can sink to their level may be satisfying viscerally, but not intellectually.

"But we are under no obligation to treat people in a manner that puts our own population in harm's way."

People will probably do what we have to do whenever the going gets really tough. This isn't that time. Besides, this logic could justify any thing in any conflict. Capture a soldier? Caring for him requires resources and men that detract from our cause. Hence, they put our population at risk and therefore we don't have to provide quarter.

3) Re: torture, and its definitions. We're speaking about torture in general here, so no specificities apply other than to my particular comment that we were trying to subvert torture law. My reference is, again, Annas.

4) As to the hypothetical about painlessly extracting data from prisoners, a la Vulcan mind meld, if that were possible, I'd happily donate to support the technology. Sounds like the laser guided bomb of interrogation. The best way to do a dirty job that must be done.

5) "Abu Ghraib was the poster child of bad U.S. prison management. The parties involved are getting their just desserts."

This is an opinion. I submit, based on the comments made by our leaders, that being led around on a leash or sexually humiliated or made to believe electrocution was imminent are all not that different that the techniques that we've advocated. Teach people to do a b and c then leave them relatively unsupervised --> don't act shocked if d happens. Again, my reference is Annas. I haven't seen his theory (that the road to Abu ghraib began with our own written / spoken policy) disproven.

"In the short run this was damaging, but in the long run, people may see the rule of law prevail. That would be a novelty in Iraq, given the extreme (to put it mildly) methods used by the Baathists. The net effect paradoxically may be positive."

Possibly. Don't you think it would be more convincing if instead of blaming a handfull of bad apples Bush made a convincing denunciation of interrogation techniques traditionally outside of ua and international law, took some responsibility, etc? Because it comes off to many including myself that the whole culture is to try to bend the rules and then act as if those that went over the line are rogue soldiers.

6) As for the Bush quotes my impression was just my impression and if I was wrong I apologize; I thought I recalled something on the order of, "he was feeling his oats that day," and while his comment on the Crusade was no where near as stupid as Durbin's, it was nevertheless more disappointing to me than to you coming as it did during a scripted context.

[Bill Glasheen]

As far as blending into the crowd and skipping uniforms, we could have said the same about our enemy in Vietnam (at times), and I don't recall suspension of the Geneva convention occuring then.

I can't see any decent comparison between Vietnam and al qaeda in Afghanistan. The VC and the NVA were a pretty well-defined enemy fighting from their own land. And they did not target civilian women, children, and elderly as a matter of policy.

Furthermore, the U.S. treated their prisoners a damn sight better than they did ours.

The same is true today, by the way. Ask any servicemen or civilians how they've been treated by al qaeda and the Taliban - if they're still alive to talk about it.

I don't think its wise, particularly because the torture is not thought to be that effective and is near universally condemned...

I'm stopping you right there. Define what you mean by torture, and tell me where it is being practiced. Other than at Abu Ghraib where American justice is being delivered as we type, you're going to come up short (IMO).

Otherwise, don't throw the word around.

People will probably do what we have to do whenever the going gets really tough. This isn't that time. Besides, this logic could justify any thing in any conflict. Capture a soldier? Caring for him requires resources and men that detract from our cause. Hence, they put our population at risk and therefore we don't have to provide quarter.

But we aren't doing "anything." To wit... It's my undestanding that the families of some detainees are asking not to have their sons sent back to Afghanistan. Better treatment in Gitmo.

Certainly better treatment that I could afford myself while in grad school... Only difference being I subjected myself to years of starvation and abuse by faculty.

By the way, what do you mean by Annas?

And who is trying to subvert torture laws? At this point (while I'm consciously not playing Devil's Advocate), the only thing I'm pointing out is how GC rules need not apply at Gitmo.

As for your opinion about Abu Ghraib, this IMO is hopeless disagreement. Bush haters want a conspiracy, and for GW to engage in some "liberal guilt." Then of course they'll use it in their next campaign for their guy.

I don't blame GW and Rumsfeld for telling detractors where to go. Clinton did the same to the Republicans when they were harassing him about conspiracies. That's the way it should be. Absent any treasonous activity, let the man fight the war. The sooner the job gets done and the enemy sees we won't budge, the sooner our men and women come home.

Afghanistan and Iraq are the most filmed, studied, and reported of all wars in history. What other country could put up with that kind of scrutiny in past wars and come out smelling nice?

I once worked for a company that got on the wrong side of the local rag sheet...I mean newspaper. I know what it's like when you have someone in the editorial staff who has a burr in his butt and wants to make life hell for you. It got so bad that I started writing letters to the editor of the newspaper, which by the way they published. (LTTE staff was independent, and loved it.) My company held its breath...but didn't stop me because I didn't represent myself as an employee of the company. Furthermore, I was right, and my letters brought on other letters. Eventually the source of it all (an attorney general who wanted publicity so he could be elected governor) went away, and suddenly we could do no wrong. Amazing...

Again, what other country in history fighting a war could put up with on-the-ground filming and Michael Moore and the NYT and the LAT and the WP and Newsweek with false stories, and come out as well?

I'm a six sigma guy and I want pefection. I want us to be the good guys. But I'm not falling sucker to a bunch of sociopaths who want to use our free and open system against us. And I'm going to take all of what I read with a grain of salt - no matter what side it comes from. The only publication these days that doesn't give me heartburn is the Wall Street Journal. And that's because they editorialize the least of any good source I've seen.

I thought I recalled something on the order of, "he was feeling his oats that day"

About the "bring it on" comment, well maybe I said that. It doesn't bug me. The comment was DESIGNED to rankle. It is what it is.

As for the Crusade comment, well I cringed when I heard it. I've NEVER supported that comment, and challenge you to find where I have. (Although I can't even search for my own stuff on these forums. Bad search engine.)

You ARE mistaken, and apology accepted. You don't goof very often.

Nope... The Crusade comment was a real zinger. Nothing like taking a 2x4 and whacking it upside a hornet's nest before you try to deal with it. Stupid, stupid, stupid!!! It fed right into the al qaeda and Al Jazeera propaganda efforts.

GW has his days. We all do.

- Bill

[RACastanet]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ian
As far as blending into the crowd and skipping uniforms, we could have said the same about our enemy in Vietnam (at times), and I don't recall suspension of the Geneva convention occuring then


The South Vietnamese army would just shoot VC infiltrators on the spot. (Unless of course they needed to torture info out of them first.) They had little interest in the Geneva convention. The VC and NVA returned the favor when they over ran the south in 1975 after we pulled out.

Rich

[Mark Weitz]

Hi Bill, busy at the keyboard I see.

In this last post, you used the word "torture" (or some derivative of it) twenty-seven (27) times. Wow... Your debating technique (see your post) is to describe something a party or parties are doing, and then use the word torture afterwards. The listener then is to assume that the wide net you have cast puts the actions of al Zarqawi slowly carving the head off of a civilian and the actions of a specialist questioning a detainee are morally equivalent.

Bill, you sometimes have a habit of misreading my comments and making strawman arguments. Yes, I did use the word torture because, guess what, that's what I'm talking about. Let me make this perfectly clear. I'm not criticizing lawful intelligence gathering techniques nor do I pretend to have comprehensive inside knowledge of these and I'm guessing you probably don't either. I'm not casting a wide net as you suggest. I'm talking about practices that most of the world understand as torture, and they were all displayed in numerous pictures for us to look at. I'm also talking about the wide variety of stress positions, such as hanging people by their arms, or making them stand in awkward positions for extended positions for a long time.

OK... Now I get it. Torture bad. No torture good. We are a Democracy. We do not torture. Let's all light candles and sing Kumbaya. And then we all can go home and sleep at night.

Only THOSE guys use tourture, after all. Right?

Bill, this is caricature and I won't respond to it except to say that it bears little resemblance to my comments. And if it amsuses you to patronize me then knock your self out.

So now it is official; Americans are Nazis. We exterminate Muslims in gas chambers.

I would never make such an outrageous claim so please don't associate it with anything I've said. I watch the Daily Show with John Steward occasionally. Last night, he made a good gag out of how we know we've really got into a debate when the spectre of Nazism is raised and comparisons are made to Hitler. John Stewart is a Jew. So am I. My mother was a Holocaust survivor and all but 2 of our Hungarian family are left in Europe. I hate it when people make disgusting comparisons to the Holocaust as if all crimes and/or misbehaviour are the same thing. So I'm glad that Durbin, in the end, got it right.

Do you think Senator Durbin contributed to any "blowback" from his (mis) representation of U.S. policy? Will lives be lost because of his comments? Was there more good done than harm? Did it lead to constructive dialogue?

No I don't and I doubt lives will be lost as a result of his words. You are right, however, that it was distracting, inappropriate and did NOT lead to constructive debate. 100% agreement there.

Meanwhile... Where does the debate go? Do you think that because you and others repeat "torture" literally dozens of times in a response to a request for intelligent dialogue, that less harm will be done?

Good question. And btw, I enjoy debate otherwise I wouldn't be sitting here typing a response. And no, Bill, I don't believe that mere repetition of the word torture does much of anything. Why does the word bother you, Bill? Why are so averse to seeing the word since that's a big part of what we're talking about? Dershowitz was mentioned in the thread and he's a big fan of late of having an open debate about torture and enshrining it in policy. And while I think he's a victim of emotional hijack and cloaks his debate in false intellectualism and morality, at least he's honest and calls it torture. Why do you think that because I say the "T" word I want to shut down debate or wish to avoid intelligent debate? Are my responses not intelligent enough for you? I don't remember anybody on this thread having a monopoly on intelligent debate. I've made quite lengthy and reasoned posts on a number of threads. Simply because you don't agree with some of my positions on different topics doesn't mean that I want to shut down intelligent debate. Who's shutting down whom with comments like that?

As for there being "less harm" done, that's my main concern. Debating is one thing, but what I'm specifically talking about in previous statements is the possibility that using memos such as those prepared by Gonzales for W, which have nothing to do with some high-tech ultra-sensitive intelligence gathering technique, to authorize using "techniques" that were previously considered torture will lead to the US military being implicated and accuse of torturing as a matter of policy.

You mention a few times that you'd like to see more debate and perhaps effort into further developing intelligence techniques that use state-of-the-art (my words, but taking license) medical/scientific technologies. And I agree. On this point you have more to add than I do as you have a medical research background.

If the United States sends detainees or terrorist suspects to other countries for information extraction, will it now be OK? If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there, did it make any sound?

No it wont. You're referring to the practice of rendering, sending a suspect to a countries like Syria for intelligence gathering but also where everyone knows torture is practiced routinely. No, I don't agree with that and I'm emphatically against it.

By the way, ever experienced a maximum security prison in this country? In any country?

Have you ever been a LEO in the middle of a case where a perp and his cronies continuing to do harm and the safety and welfare of others was in your hands?

Have you even questioned a suspect in a criminal case? Do you know what is allowed and what isn't allowed?

No, to each of these. Have you? And why should my not having these experiences have anything to do with the validity of my argument. Are you a LEO? Have you experienced maximum security? Bill, these aren't exactly relevant to what I'm talking about and resorting to provocative and emotionally charged rhetorical questions doesn't help. BTW, do you imagine yourself to be more sympathetic than I am to people working in maximum security institutions or working as LEO's?

What will happen if new technology of ANY kind suddenly makes information extraction easier and virtually pain free?

If it's pain free then it's not torture. Hellooooooo!! That's what we've been talking about. Again, and this is getting tiresome, I'm against torture, not pain-free information extraction.

Mark

[Bill Glasheen]

There are several discussions going on at once here. There is "torture" (by definition) as openly discussed by Dershowitz. There is Gitmo. There is Abu Ghraib.

And there is also Bill , and his evil twin . I hope some understand the debating technique of playing devil's advocate. It is done (and I clearly marked it so) to dig deeply into the thinking of a topic that may not be as black-and-white as some like to think.

Ultimately people DO make choices, or at least effective people do. Ideally they make consistent choices that achieve good long-term results.

For the record, I've stated repeatedly that the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was wrong and represented a serious breakdown in command as well as criminal acts on the part of certain individuals. The U.S. should seek justice, and the process continues. Several parties already have pleaded guilty to serious charges of abuse, and are serving time. Others are still dealing with the machinations of the legal process.

No, I don't believe there was a conspiracy "all the way to the top" at Abu Ghraib. But I know I won't convince some people of that. Such is politics.

Gitmo intrigues me, because I truly believe these men represent a new paradigm for war. I honestly believe we'll need a Geneva Convention V to deal with men (and women) who seek to kill the vulnerable in numbers for effect, and do so without representing any country. Furthermore, al Qaeda and groups like it seek to bring our free, open society down (like virus-writing hackers getting at Microsoft) by using our system against itself. Either we morph to respond, or we become prey and statistics. And their brand of righteous tyranny will rise from the ashes. All we fought for will be lost.

And in responding out of self defense, how many of the principles that we cherish and that make us whom we are do we have to sacrifice? Or are there creative ways around this?

I don't necessarily buy that "doing the right thing" alone wins the hearts and minds of the world. A free press and the Bill of Rights are great but... The people who need to see our message will not see it. They have their own cultural issues and biases. Al Qaeda tortures civilians for al jazeera TV, and there is no outrage. Instead, there either is silence, or tacit approval. They stick it in the eye of The Great Satan America.

Atrocity as a policy often comes around to bite you in the arse. But it and some good propaganda sure can shape the world. Doing the right thing isn't enough. We need a multi-pronged, long-term strategy that goes beyond partisanship and presidential cycles. We need to be aware of the brainwashing that goes on in places like the madrasses where tomorrow's killers come in large supply. We need to understand the importance of spirituality and religion, but appreciate that it's a power held by people who abuse it.

And never forget the golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules. Often what wins at the end of the day has more to do with what society produces the most and is able to keep the most. It's how we brought The Soviet Union and communism down. And it's why there is so much attention paid to a diverse group of people living on sand and a little bit of black gold.

I used to worry about our dependence on Middle East oil. I still do. However more and more, I look forward to the day we pump the deserts dry. Then the concerns of those who live in those lands will have to come from the fruits of the sweat of their brows rather than from the random chance of having won a geographic lottery. That day is not far off.

- Bill

[RACastanet]

Here is more discussion on the 'Gulag' like conditions at Gitmo:

Rice Pilaf Again?!

Richmond Times-Dispatch Jul 1, 2005


We have in hand, courtesy of the Senate Republican Caucus via the folks at powerlineblog.com, a menu for the meals fed to detainees at Guantnamo Bay -- that "gulag of our time," in the words of Amnesty International and others of that ilk.

Prisoners of the Soviets' Gulag Archipelago ate a few hundred calories a day, if they were lucky, mostly thin soup made of fishheads and the like. At Gitmo, detainees are given -- well, let's see . . . .

For breakfast: Pancakes, syrup, orange juice, fruit, milk, margarine, and coffee or tea. Or a whole-wheat bagel, oatmeal, juice, fruit, scrambled eggs, milk, margarine, and coffee or tea. Or whole-wheat bread, Raisin Bran, orange juice, fruit, milk, a "veggie patty," margarine, and coffee or tea.

For lunch: Whole-wheat pita, long-grain brown rice, canned peaches, steamed asparagus, northern beans, margarine, and tea or drink-ade. Or whole-wheat bread, tossed green rice, fresh fruit, wax beans, a seasoned beef patty, margarine, and tea or drink-ade. Or a whole-wheat bread slice, garlic mashed potatoes, canned pears, seasoned peas, kidney beans, margarine, and tea or drink-ade.

For dinner: Noodles Jefferson, a whole-wheat bread slice, fresh fruit, green beans, carrot sticks, baked chicken breast in broth, margarine, and tea or drink-ade. Or rice pilaf, whole-wheat pita, fresh fruit, steamed cauliflower, a veggie patty, margarine, and tea or drink-ade. Or whole-wheat bread, long-grain brown rice, fresh fruit, steamed carrots, broccoli or celery, lemon baked fish, margarine, and tea or drink-ade.

Other menu items include pineapple, okra, a beef patty with onions, succotash, black-eyed peas, Lyonnaise rice, spicy baked fish, bayou chicken breast, acorn squash, honey-glazed chicken, chickpeas, spinach, tandoori chicken, and mustard dill baked fish.

The daily caloric intake from the meals ranges from 2,500 to 2,900. Of course, the menus above represent just one 12-day cycle. Some detainees -- prisoners of the terror war -- have been held for years now, and even the most creative Army cooks can come up with only so many permutations of the available fare. Plus, all that margarine must be rough on the arteries.

So it's no wonder Senator Dick Durbin compared Gitmo with the gulag, Nazi death camps, and the killing fields of Cambodia. Rice pilaf again?

The horror.

Like Bill, I was a starving student while in college. If only I could have gotten the 2,500 calories a day these poor, tortured souls are being forced to eat.

Rich

[MikeK]

Gitmo intrigues me, because I truly believe these men represent a new paradigm for war. I honestly believe we'll need a Geneva Convention V to deal with men (and women) who seek to kill the vulnerable in numbers for effect, and do so without representing any country.

Bill, I can think of many ways of dealing with them even without a convention, but that wouldn't be right. I think maybe they have a self esteme problem that can be helped through extreme sports. Maybe something like Jihadi Parachute Chase [a C-130, 10 Jihadi, 9 parachutes and watch the fun], or Mine Field BMX. Maybe even a TV show like al Qaeda Fear Factor, or something fun like Terrorists Most Extreme Challenge hosted by Mayor Rudy G.

Furthermore, al Qaeda and groups like it seek to bring our free, open society down (like virus-writing hackers getting at Microsoft) by using our system against itself. Either we morph to respond, or we become prey and statistics. And their brand of righteous tyranny will rise from the ashes. All we fought for will be lost.

We are Bill, the big issue will be if our leaders have the stomach to continue the fight.

[Panther]

Rich!

I gotta jump in and voice my astonishment at such an ingenious, insidious, cruel form of torture!

The meals! The calories! The confinement!

If and when the Gitmo detainees are released, they will NEVER be able to fight again! They will be way too busy in their new, morbidly obese lives as "official couch potatoes" to go back to desert training!

Who has time to train as a Jihadist when they have doctors appointments to prepare for quadruple by-pass surgery?

Who has time to train as a Jihadist when they have to attend the "sweatin' to the oldies" class to try and lose the extra 50-60 kilos
gained in confinement?

This is pure genious!

It might not be "torture" per se right now, but I know that it will be nothing BUT torture for them later!

And that's personal experience which is on-going!

[IJ]

George Annas wrote the article I posted on torture. All my uses of the word can be referred to that work. Bill, tell me what you think of his use. I have nothing to say that's not in his piece anyway. His contention is that US officials with a certain preferred interogation tried to bend the US and international rules on torture. That culture, I believe, and lack of supervision led to Abu Ghraib. Now, what happened there wasn't horrific, it was just bad, and a PR coup for the wackos. And when I say the culture led to AG I don't mean Bush himself ordered each thing that happened. This isn't some lunatic conspiracy. This is what happens when officials who skirt interrogation rules and don't train people to run prisons are in charge. These people were undersupervised. No conspiracy needs to be conjured up, but let's dispense with the idea that all responsibility began and ended at AG with a small handful of people who dreamt up their misdeeds de novo. C'mon.

Incidentally, I have been to a supermax in virginia. I was advised not to walk quickly in the courtyards or I would be shot to death as a matter of routine.

It's amazing how clearly the menu at Gitmo DOESN'T address the concerns raised. What does the menu (a fraction of the experience) say about the rest? Are we to assume that if the desserts have a whipped topping that the same whipped topping is the harshest item used in an interrogation? I don't follow. I'm primarily interested in hearing a more convincing renunciation of illegal techniques (happy Bill? ) from our officials and maybe, oh, letting the UN investigate concerns. Do we want to invite comparisons to Saddam's blockade of inspectors?

[Mills75]

Honestly just in my opinion I think anyone who has harmed the United States should be tortured and in all honesty I really don't give two ratt's tails about how they are being treated. I'd tell the guys have a ball and do whatever you want with those prisoners just keep it quiet so our guys who get captured don't suffer but in the meantime feed them poo sandwiches and beat on em and get what ya gotta get however ya got to get it. I have no sympathy or mercy for enemies of the United States. heck they cut private citizens heads off for just working in Iraq and those people aren't even soldiers. I could care less about the enemy prisoners and I hope they suffer greatly. They didn't cry for us when our people burned in the towers or had to jump to their death. My simple solution is don't be our enemy and if you are then don't you go and get caught cause if you do welcome to the torture chamber fella's boo hoo hoo and all that good stuff. These people don't know anything but pain anyhow lets help them remember what they don't want to talk about by making them talk about it however you have to do it. I hope our enemies rot in those prisons in pain beyond belief cause they're getting their just due in my book. Just like the old saying don't mess with the bull unless you want to feel the horns so don't whine about it later. I'd volunteer as a matter of fact to spray a hose on them while our guys did the electric shock
treatment. Sounds like a fun night to me.

[Mills75]

lol for a fun game I think we should tie an enemy soldier to the wall and you know those fast pitch baseball games at the carnival ? Our guys should get to line up and have a bucket of baseballs and just let rip full blast and see if you can brake the candy out of the hanging donkey. Whoever gets the candy out wins lol...If you knock off his turban you get another throw lol. how bout this name for my prison....? come and Gitmo whoopins lol...

[Panther]

But there have been people who've been picked up and sent to various places for being suspected "enemy combatants" and then later found to have been innocent.

There have been people who have been released after months (and in at least one case a couple of years) of imprisonment as an "enemy combatant" when it was proven that the person was not who they were thought to be. Similar or even the same name was the cause in more than one case.

There have been people who were imprisoned and sent overseas for imprisonment who were legally living in the U.S. and were found later to be innocent of the accusation and not have any ties to the terrorists.

On the other hand, there are things to be concerned about from the opposite perspective...

First, if we're trying to make the U.S. more secure, why is W allowing illegals a free pass to stay in the U.S?

If we're trying to make the U.S. more secure, why was there such a stink over the "minutemen" who have proven that our borders can be secured and have also proven that the government is shirking it's duty by not securing the borders and basically ignoring the problem?

If we're trying to make the U.S. more secure, then why isn't anything being done about the terrorist cells which they do know about and who's links have been reported in various media?

If we're trying to make the U.S. more secure, then why is legislation which will open up the U.S. to foreign interests such as CAFTA, which is an assault on U.S. sovreignty being snuck through Congress?

If we're trying to make the U.S. more secure, then why has legislation been passed which does nothing to increase surveillence on terrorists (in the U.S. or elsewhere), but targets U.S. citizens' freedoms, rights and liberties?

Things are going from bad to worse very fast for the freedoms and rights of U.S. citizens all in the name of 9/11/01...

As Ben Franklin said, "Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither."

[IJ]

Mills, just a couple of questions:

1) If you would defend the US (made great by it's defense of the individual from the state) by dishing out punishments that would have outraged the founding fathers, did America win?

2) Did you know that torturers, not just the tortured, suffer long term psychological problems from the practice?

3) You're a christian, if memory serves. Since this is viewed by many on their side as a religious war... don't you think the torture you outlined would cast doubts on the validity of our majority religions teachings? I mean, WWJD?

[Mills75]

I have to say with no disrespect intended truly I like the part of the bible that says I am my brothers keeper. I don't think many people could come back from war totally intact anyhow or at least I don't think you'd ever be the same. I'd make those people pay for my sanity heavily if I was going to lose all or some of it most likely anyhow and yes we might get some people who should not be there but they get people who should not be there too and it's a matter of wrong place and wrong time and it ***** but it seems war ***** too so i would be extremely angry just being honest and I would have to not care and become something other than me and even something I may not like 100% percent but who knows I'd want someone to pay for it heavily and I meant that. I would be pissed and I would want someone to pay for my time and trouble and whatever else i may lose in the process like my friends and my mind and whatever else. I would not want to give it all up without making them pay an angry cost.

who knows i hate to think of war it's really brutal and ugly and I figure if I ever had to go I would have to be brutal and ugly too in order to deal with it in some fashion or either brake down and and go emotional and sad. I don't think i could remain equal in that situation. I feel I'd go emotionally ill and dispondent or be a brutal unforgiving person. I don't like either just thinking of how I would truly feel and I would be scared and I'm not ashamed to admit it not scared of the enemy but scared of what I would be after it was done.I just know afterwards I would most likely not be me as I know me now and that would worry me as to how it would end up cause I'm not sure.

my honest greatest fear about war is whether i would end up not talking and sitting in a chair staring at a wall or whether i would be a heartless brutal and stone cold killer who could wipe out anything breathing and I honestly couldn't say which one would happen or if either would happen but those two possibilites would scare the hell out of me. I'd just want to be me and be able to deal but I don't know if I could or not.

Jeff