Talkin' death and torture. Repsponse to readers
I decided to move this off the comments page.
Here are the comments from Shep and Jim and my responses below.
Shep said...
I wonder how many of those that have died or been seriously tortured at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib were convicted of any crime whatsoever. Zero, I believe. How many of those were even CHARGED with any crime whatsoever? Probably zero again. So the argument that these folks were all trying to kill us is a little weak...
Shep:
We don't know about deaths at Gitmo yet, but we do know that some have been released from both locations. Now of course the act of releasing people and not charging them with a crime COULD point to the fact that not EVERYONE in Gitmo was correctly rounded up and detained. Just another reason why torture should not be used. Might they have info? Maybe, but they also might have been turned into the Americans by a warlord who wanted the cash that was offered for bodies (Bounties ranged from $3,000 to $25,000, the detainees testified during military tribunals, according to transcripts the U.S. government gave The Associated Press to comply with a Freedom of Information lawsuit. Gitmo detainees sold to Americans -AP May 31, 2005
The chance of torturing someone who is not-guilty, based on them being arrested and detained, is clearly higher than zero.
Thanks for posting!
Jim said...
Zero is also the number of deaths at Gitmo. Zero is also the number of people tortured there.
Jim: Excellent point! At this point in time we have no evidence that anyone has died in Gitmo. I'll do some research and put some info together to see if the reports from Gitmo detainees are meeting your definition of torture.
(and I realize that the definition of torture varies among some people) As you can see I'm trying not to be overly broad here since I don't have that information from a verifiable source.)
So, you WIN! At this moment in time, based on the current info I have, you are CORRECT. I agree with your comment.
Now, note that my comment was about Abu Ghraib (maybe you were responding to Shep, but I was taking your response to me. If it was directed to Shep I'll let him respond) You have changed the topic Jim. This move often is one used by people to avoid acknowledging that the other person is correct. It is a common face saving maneuver. "Oh yeah?, Well...(insert new topic or point here)"
I'm GLAD, based on the info I have that no one has died, at Gitmo. I'm GLAD that you don't think that the interrogation techniques at GIMTO amount to torture. That is a GOOD thing. And not just because I don't believe in torturing and murdering people we hold. It is also BAD for our reputation, makes our soldiers less safe, and increases the level of animosity toward the US. It is also not the point of my post, but since you replied that way it must mean you accept my comments. Now you could of course use the same technique about Abu Ghraib "Yeah, but... they were terrorists or there were only a handful of people involved in the torture..." but you didn't because you can't. They is solid evidence FROM THE ARMY'S OWN REPORTS that both of those arguments aren't correct.
Like Mr. Sussman, by focusing on Durbin or changing the topic we aren't addressing the issue. We are now torturing and killing people. We do not know for certain that these people are 'trying to kill up'. Is that a good idea? Do we want to be this kind of country? Are those activities effective? Morally correct? (Given the Administration's embracing of Christianity, I WILL bring up the moral card. They like to pick and choose which moral actions they will use and like to apply their idea of what is morals to others. But they are NOT morally consistent when it doesn't fit their agenda. Now, some people ARE fine with this. I'm not and I think most Americans aren't either.
Thanks for posting!
Here are the comments from Shep and Jim and my responses below.
Shep said...
I wonder how many of those that have died or been seriously tortured at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib were convicted of any crime whatsoever. Zero, I believe. How many of those were even CHARGED with any crime whatsoever? Probably zero again. So the argument that these folks were all trying to kill us is a little weak...
Shep:
We don't know about deaths at Gitmo yet, but we do know that some have been released from both locations. Now of course the act of releasing people and not charging them with a crime COULD point to the fact that not EVERYONE in Gitmo was correctly rounded up and detained. Just another reason why torture should not be used. Might they have info? Maybe, but they also might have been turned into the Americans by a warlord who wanted the cash that was offered for bodies (Bounties ranged from $3,000 to $25,000, the detainees testified during military tribunals, according to transcripts the U.S. government gave The Associated Press to comply with a Freedom of Information lawsuit. Gitmo detainees sold to Americans -AP May 31, 2005
The chance of torturing someone who is not-guilty, based on them being arrested and detained, is clearly higher than zero.
Thanks for posting!
Jim said...
Zero is also the number of deaths at Gitmo. Zero is also the number of people tortured there.
Jim: Excellent point! At this point in time we have no evidence that anyone has died in Gitmo. I'll do some research and put some info together to see if the reports from Gitmo detainees are meeting your definition of torture.
(and I realize that the definition of torture varies among some people) As you can see I'm trying not to be overly broad here since I don't have that information from a verifiable source.)
So, you WIN! At this moment in time, based on the current info I have, you are CORRECT. I agree with your comment.
Now, note that my comment was about Abu Ghraib (maybe you were responding to Shep, but I was taking your response to me. If it was directed to Shep I'll let him respond) You have changed the topic Jim. This move often is one used by people to avoid acknowledging that the other person is correct. It is a common face saving maneuver. "Oh yeah?, Well...(insert new topic or point here)"
I'm GLAD, based on the info I have that no one has died, at Gitmo. I'm GLAD that you don't think that the interrogation techniques at GIMTO amount to torture. That is a GOOD thing. And not just because I don't believe in torturing and murdering people we hold. It is also BAD for our reputation, makes our soldiers less safe, and increases the level of animosity toward the US. It is also not the point of my post, but since you replied that way it must mean you accept my comments. Now you could of course use the same technique about Abu Ghraib "Yeah, but... they were terrorists or there were only a handful of people involved in the torture..." but you didn't because you can't. They is solid evidence FROM THE ARMY'S OWN REPORTS that both of those arguments aren't correct.
Like Mr. Sussman, by focusing on Durbin or changing the topic we aren't addressing the issue. We are now torturing and killing people. We do not know for certain that these people are 'trying to kill up'. Is that a good idea? Do we want to be this kind of country? Are those activities effective? Morally correct? (Given the Administration's embracing of Christianity, I WILL bring up the moral card. They like to pick and choose which moral actions they will use and like to apply their idea of what is morals to others. But they are NOT morally consistent when it doesn't fit their agenda. Now, some people ARE fine with this. I'm not and I think most Americans aren't either.
Thanks for posting!
5 Comments:
On a belated note I would have loved for some of my many readers in the CIA and the NSA to respond to this topic given their knowledge about the effectiveness and utility of torture, but I know that it is hard for you to comment on this topic without breaching security or (for my readers in MI6, violating the states secrets act).
However I do appreciate you stopping by and reading my blog and I want to encourage and thank you for continuing to put out your info about the problems with using torture as a matter of course. Those messaging points are important, and some ARE getting through!
As you know there are already too many people showing the fact that Americans DO use torture, so the effectiveness of using torture as a treat has been maintained (which some would argue IS the most effective use of torture--as a treat, and if you have to actually use it you have failed as an interrogator.)
Keep up your non-torturing work and know that there are some of us out here outside of the intelligence community that appreciate how hard you work uncovering information and how much you struggle with this issue.
You are the heart of the true Americans keeping true to the ideals that our forefathers . Just because some cowboy yahoos think that torture is the first and best method of using torture doesn't mean that you can't prove him wrong. Own your soul. Keep true to what is right: legally, strategically, and effectively.
And thank you again for keeping us safe in the best traditions of the U.S. Constitution.
I perhaps didn't say it as elegantly as Spocko, but I was basically trying to make the same point that Spocko made: It's very inaccurate to say that everyone in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are terrorists out to kill us.
There's so far zero way to independantly establish which prisoners are terrorists and which ones are wrongly imprisoned. Everyone in there is assumed to be guilty right from the start, unfortunately.
And I couldn't agree more with the fact that lots of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib prisoners were simply suddenly released by the US months (or years) after being rounded up DOES imply that the process of putting prisoners in those places in the first place was perhaps somewhat slighly imperfect.
I was responding to Shep's comment. I do not have enough information to speak to what happened at Abu Ghraib, but if the Army reports support your statements (and to be clear I don't dispute your statements because I have not read the reports myself) I would submit that they were an abberation rather than the norm.
There has been alot of talk about these detainees being "charged" or "found guilty". I submit this article for your consideration.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020123.html
I don't think we have to charge these detainees with anything. From what I can tell, we don't have to release them unless the Iraqi government (or whatever their country of origin) protests and demands the release of thier citizens.
Spocko's words:
Are those activities effective? Morally correct? (Given the Administration's embracing of Christianity, I WILL bring up the moral card. They like to pick and choose which moral actions they will use and like to apply their idea of what is morals to others. But they are NOT morally consistent when it doesn't fit their agenda. Now, some people ARE fine with this. I'm not and I think most Americans aren't either.
Jim: Can you explain how they are not morally consistant? Are you of the opinion that Jesus wants Christians to be pacifists?
I would submit that they were an abberation rather than the norm.
It would be good to think so.
But seeing as how these individuals are not exactly a high priority of the government or the media, if someone dies, what's to keep them from simply disappearing off the face of the earth?
It's not like anyone knows who they are.
Torture doesn't work. It's a stupid interrogation technique that produces unreliable results. It is bound to cause far more harm than good for the nation that accepts its use. It irrevocably scars the torturer and the abused.
And like spocko, I salute the agents of our government who work to stop its use by our government.
Post a Comment
<< Home