Legality of torture

[tater]

I agree with treating them like POWs.

We catch them, then lock them up until their Islamist group unconditionally surrenders to us or ceases to exist. Since they don't wear uniforms, we assign them to a force (what choice do we have?).

We held German POWs until the war was over, for example. Had the war been mostly over, but a fraction of german forces holed up in the Alps—they'd have stayed POWs until that last bastion fell.

So asking for POW treatment is asking for lifetime jail for all of them. I'm fine with that.

Oh, and since we're treating them like "good" enemy forces, if they broke rules of war before they were caught (intentionally mixing with civilians, operating out of uniform, etc), before they are released they virtually all get tried with war crimes. Any that survive that gauntlet of firing squads gets released.

Originally Posted by tater

I agree with treating them like POWs.

We catch them, then lock them up until their Islamist group unconditionally surrenders to us or ceases to exist. Since they don't wear uniforms, we assign them to a force (what choice do we have?).

We held German POWs until the war was over, for example. Had the war been mostly over, but a fraction of german forces holed up in the Alps—they'd have stayed POWs until that last bastion fell.

So asking for POW treatment is asking for lifetime jail for all of them. I'm fine with that.

Oh, and since we're treating them like "good" enemy forces, if they broke rules of war before they were caught (intentionally mixing with civilians, operating out of uniform, etc), before they are released they virtually all get tried with war crimes. Any that survive that gauntlet of firing squads gets released.

Well then Americans aren't safe outside the US either, and given what a hostile nation the US is toward it's own citizens they might not be safe in US either.

[tater]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Well then Americans aren't safe outside the US either, and given what a hostile nation the US is toward it's own citizens they might not be safe in US either.

We're hardly hostile to our own citizens. Regardless, people come here in droves—even illegally—clearly they know something you don't.

Anyway, if you think they should be treated as POWs, you must agree with what I posted above. An al Qaida POW would obviously have to be held until we were no longer fighting al Qaida. Since the only solution to AQ is unconditional surrender or kill every last one of them, that means POWs for life. Note that letting them go would then result in AQ being back in existence. I suppose we could release them with a 60 second head start to make a run for it, then start shooting?

BTW, Alan Deshowitz (a liberal lawyer here in the US) has suggested judicial warrants for certain levels of interrogation. basically the worst we'd ever do to people, but it would require judicial permission, and only then under very limited conditions. This was his take on the "ticking time bomb" scenario.

For example:

The cops luck into catching a guy. Say they pull him over for speeding (as they did Muhammad Atta), and catch his name on a watch list, and detain him. His car had an odd electronic part he had purchased in it, and it sets off red flags. Then it turns out his car sets off a geiger counter. Other agencies have chatter about a big attack, and now it's starting to look like this guy they grabbed by accident is involved in an a-bomb attack.

This is a ticking time bomb. He's one member of a cell, and now they know he's arrested, they are likely to try and blow the device up ASAP.

The guy doesn't say a word when asked nicely.

Now what? This could literally be the difference between hundreds of thousands hurt and killed or not.

Realistically, if the feds think this, they're going to do whatever they think will work, and worry about legality later. Why not have a legal system that has some oversight and control, instead?

It's worth considering, anyway.

Originally Posted by tater

We're hardly hostile to our own citizens. Regardless, people come here in droves—even illegally—clearly they know something you don't.

Anyway, if you think they should be treated as POWs, you must agree with what I posted above. An al Qaida POW would obviously have to be held until we were no longer fighting al Qaida. Since the only solution to AQ is unconditional surrender or kill every last one of them, that means POWs for life. Note that letting them go would then result in AQ being back in existence. I suppose we could release them with a 60 second head start to make a run for it, then start shooting?

BTW, Alan Deshowitz (a liberal lawyer here in the US) has suggested judicial warrants for certain levels of interrogation. basically the worst we'd ever do to people, but it would require judicial permission, and only then under very limited conditions. This was his take on the "ticking time bomb" scenario.

For example:

The cops luck into catching a guy. Say they pull him over for speeding (as they did Muhammad Atta), and catch his name on a watch list, and detain him. His car had an odd electronic part he had purchased in it, and it sets off red flags. Then it turns out his car sets off a geiger counter. Other agencies have chatter about a big attack, and now it's starting to look like this guy they grabbed by accident is involved in an a-bomb attack.

This is a ticking time bomb. He's one member of a cell, and now they know he's arrested, they are likely to try and blow the device up ASAP.

The guy doesn't say a word when asked nicely.

Now what? This could literally be the difference between hundreds of thousands hurt and killed or not.

Realistically, if the feds think this, they're going to do whatever they think will work, and worry about legality later. Why not have a legal system that has some oversight and control, instead?

It's worth considering, anyway.

Well I know that even if they were treated as POW's the US would find some loopholes for torture etc. It's seems to be their modus operandi.

Majority of the people in, say, Guantanamo have been non-combatants, people like truck drivers from Kirgistan etc. who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Are you saying that I should sanction the US's treatment of folks like that as POW's held indefinitely and possibly even tortured?

Oh this is funny, Alan Dershowitz. I wrote a piece about Dershowitz's views a while back, he's a rabid zionist and, not surprisingly, as anti-muslim/pro-torture as they come. If you're in favour of separating religion from governing then Dershowitz might not be the right guy to turn to.

Originally Posted by tater

Another great analysis by Andy McCarthy (prosecutor of the 1993 Trade Center bombers):

http://article.nationalreview.com/33...rew-c-mccarthy

Salient points are that the US Constitutional challenges to torture with which everyone (in the US) agrees are to the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments. They apply only to people within the US judicial system, basically. Cruel and unusual punishment applies to what is meted out after a trial.

Oh yea, why have a trial because it will only tie your hands about torture. Might as well torture them without a trial, completely by the book.

Since waterboarding (what we are really discussing here, nothing else the US has done is even close to torture) does no real physical harm, we are limited to mental pain and suffering.

How do you know nothing else is used? We're only now beginning to find out about what happened in the Vietnam war, and a lot of nasty stuff did happen there. Torture of every type was used in South America by the US and School of America's graduates right up until the present day. The US has exported it's knowledge of torture to many governments in the Middle-East, including such differing nations as Israel and Egypt. So...what am I supposed to think about all this?

[tater]

Got it, "zionist."

nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

They are striped, and have horns, right?

tater,

1) give proof that supports that number of individuals waterboarded

2) proof that only waterboarding has been used

Hell, while you're at it, give us the insights into the US's torture 'regimen', I'm sure a lot of people would be interested.

Originally Posted by tater

Got it, "zionist."

nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

They are striped, and have horns, right?

No. They believe, among other things, that a mystical being gave them the divine right to steal a land that according to them belongs to them and only them. I guess you're ok with that while at the same time condemning other religions.

[GoldenRivet]

I have stayed out of this one fir as long as I could. But here is my take on the subject of torture.

If in uncivilized enemy, unbound by the Geneva convention captured one of our boys over there... There ain't any lawyers, there are no rights, there are no bleeding hearts liberals, no ACLU... our trooper is going to experience the unimaginable at the hands od sadistic men who wouldn't think twice about taking a hammer to your bound testicles.

So I don't want to hear a damned thing about what "is or isn't" torture.

Waterboard them until they die of cardiac arrest for all I care.

Line them up abrest. Ask them a question. You get no answer you slaughter a live pig, splash them with it's blood and blow their brains out and move to the next guy.

By guy #3... you have your information

they don't place any value on your lives... Why place value on theirs?