better late than never

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

What if a gang of criminals kidnapped you wife/girfriend/mother/daghter (take your pick) and the police immediately caught one of them, but not the others (who still had your loved one captive and subject to rape/torture/etc). Would you want the police to torture the thug to save your loved one from rape? I would. If not, you probably don't care enough about them. Those Marines and soldiers probably care alot about their buddies getting wounded and shot by the thugs over their. Commendable. Would you torture Moussaoui on September 10, 2001 to prevent 9/11 if you could? I would. If you wouldn't, you probably don't care enough about the potential victims and their families.

Oh, and BTW, you don't know what your talking about with respect to the Geneva Conventions. A signatory "party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention

Last time I heard Al Qaeda has not signed nor followed the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. Please feel free to correct me if you have contrary information.

Let's start with this, "If not, you probably don't care enough about them." You're saying that I'm not willing to torture someone for information. I don't really love my girlfriend/wife/family member. And conversely, if really do love them, I will torture anyone in my way for information.

That's a logical fallacy. There is no relationship between my love for my kidnapped wife, sister or girlfriend and my willingness to torture someone. I can truly, deeply and in all other ways love my family, AND be smart enough to realize that torturing someone won't help them. And please, dragging the red herring of "the greater good" across the trail isn't helping your argument any. Here's why.

Torture is inherently unreliable. First you have to assume you caught one of the actual kidnappers ... not a bystander. Then you have to assume he knows something (who, what, when, where, etc). Then you have to assume the other kidnappers won't change their plans, knowing their accomplice is in custody.

And finally, for torture to be any benefit, you have to assume it produces reliable results. It doesn't. Torture someone long enough and they will tell you anything. They will make up intel, confess to whatever you're asking, and sign anything you want. And even if they tell the truth, it is nearly impossible to determine the truth from what they lied about to stop the pain.

And there are even deeper consequences for a society to resort to torture. When we assume that our loss and pain gives us extra rights, we become what we hate. Why can we do what we want and get immunity from the consequences (when we hurt "the wrong people" by mistake), while we hold a suspect's feet to the fire? Oops, sorry I tortured your son for information. He lived next door to the guy we thought was involved, and we had to be sure he wasn't holding back, just in case he overheard something through the wall. Please understand ... I just wanted my girlfriend back.

No, hang on ... there IS a worse assumption. It's the leap from justifying torture in the defense of someone you KNOW has been hurt, to torture in case someone MIGHT POSSIBLY get hurt. In the first case, you might actually have leads, witnesses and evidence. But in the second, you have little more than your fear, desperation, conjecture and prejudice to go on.

So ... yeah, you can love your family, and still not believe that torture will bring them safely back to you, leaving you free from the consequences of caring so little about other people.

Oh, and about the Geneva Convention ... just because one side doesn't sign, or breaks their part of the agreement, we still don't have the right to break our part. The Convention puts the onus on the SIGNER to comply, not on the ones who don't. Adherence to the Convention is a mark of civilization and decency. If we throw that to the wind, we risk becoming self-justifying terrorists ourselves.

We talk about setting up democracy and making allies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kidnapping and torturing their sons and daughters for information that won't be reliable anyway, isn't helping.

[RubHer Yellow Ducky]

the answer :


TORTURE em but don't tell the press!

[f5fstop]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

Let's start with this, "If not, you probably don't care enough about them." You're saying that I'm not willing to torture someone for information. I don't really love my girlfriend/wife/family member. And conversely, if really do love them, I will torture anyone in my way for information.

That's a logical fallacy. There is no relationship between my love for my kidnapped wife, sister or girlfriend and my willingness to torture someone. I can truly, deeply and in all other ways love my family, AND be smart enough to realize that torturing someone won't help them. And please, dragging the red herring of "the greater good" across the trail isn't helping your argument any. Here's why.

Torture is inherently unreliable. First you have to assume you caught one of the actual kidnappers ... not a bystander. Then you have to assume he knows something (who, what, when, where, etc). Then you have to assume the other kidnappers won't change their plans, knowing their accomplice is in custody.

And finally, for torture to be any benefit, you have to assume it produces reliable results. It doesn't. Torture someone long enough and they will tell you anything. They will make up intel, confess to whatever you're asking, and sign anything you want. And even if they tell the truth, it is nearly impossible to determine the truth from what they lied about to stop the pain.

And there are even deeper consequences for a society to resort to torture. When we assume that our loss and pain gives us extra rights, we become what we hate. Why can we do what we want and get immunity from the consequences (when we hurt "the wrong people" by mistake), while we hold a suspect's feet to the fire? Oops, sorry I tortured your son for information. He lived next door to the guy we thought was involved, and we had to be sure he wasn't holding back, just in case he overheard something through the wall. Please understand ... I just wanted my girlfriend back.

No, hang on ... there IS a worse assumption. It's the leap from justifying torture in the defense of someone you KNOW has been hurt, to torture in case someone MIGHT POSSIBLY get hurt. In the first case, you might actually have leads, witnesses and evidence. But in the second, you have little more than your fear, desperation, conjecture and prejudice to go on.

So ... yeah, you can love your family, and still not believe that torture will bring them safely back to you, leaving you free from the consequences of caring so little about other people.

Oh, and about the Geneva Convention ... just because one side doesn't sign, or breaks their part of the agreement, we still don't have the right to break our part. The Convention puts the onus on the SIGNER to comply, not on the ones who don't. Adherence to the Convention is a mark of civilization and decency. If we throw that to the wind, we risk becoming self-justifying terrorists ourselves.

We talk about setting up democracy and making allies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kidnapping and torturing their sons and daughters for information that won't be reliable anyway, isn't helping.

May I ask who is stating that torture is unreliable? Is this knowledge from people who have tried, or from people who want others not to try? I have heard it works quite well, not that I would know from personal experience, but....
Now if you are saying that torturing someone in a "cell structure" is unreliable, I might agree since I know no one who is experienced with torturing people in this type of structure, and a cell structure does compartmentalize the information.

I agree with RYD....

[RubHer Yellow Ducky]

[quote=f5fstop]May I ask who is stating that torture is unreliable? Is this knowledge from people who have tried, or from people who want others not to try? I have heard it works quite well, not that I would know from personal experience, but....
Now if you are saying that torturing someone in a "cell structure" is unreliable, I might agree since I know no one who is experienced with torturing people in this type of structure, and a cell structure does compartmentalize the information.

I agree with RYD....[/quote]

undisclosed info feels it works....

[MarineHawk]

A more complete analysis than I gave:

Originally Posted by Senator John Cornyn

… Under the Convention, only lawful combatants are eligible for POW privileges. Notwithstanding the contention of some critics, even the Red Cross's own guidelines make clear that, to earn POW privileges, combatants must satisfy all four conditions of lawful combat: being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carrying arms openly, and conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

… Extending POW protection to al Qaeda would be dangerous to our soldiers, because the Geneva Convention guarantees POWs access to a variety of devices that could easily be turned into weapons against their captors. It also forbids POWs from being confined in isolated cells. POWs are even entitled to a monetary allowance to purchase goods and preferential customs treatment for shipments they receive from the outside world. Surely no one claims that we must equip al Qaeda terrorists with tools that could be used to hurt our very own soldiers?

Recognition of POW status would also dramatically disable us from obtaining the intelligence needed to prevent further attacks on U.S. civilians and soldiers. Under the convention, questioners could not entice detainees to respond by offering creature comforts or other preferential treatment - even though that is standard operating procedure in police stations across our country. Surely no one believes that al Qaeda fighters deserve to be treated better than an American citizen accused of a crime?

POW status even confers broad combat immunity against criminal prosecution before civilian and military tribunals alike. Surely no one contends that al Qaeda fighters had a legal right to strike the Pentagon?

In addition, giving POW status to unlawful combatants would badly undermine international law itself. The laws of war are specifically designed to entice combatants to comply with international law by offering better treatment in the event of capture — but better treatment only in return for obeying the laws of war. As a renowned treatise on the law governing prisoners of war explains, "the only effective sanction against perfidious attacks in civilian dress is deprivation of prisoner-of-war status."

[Agriv8r]

torture them, then kill'em all and let god sort it out...

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Originally Posted by f5fstop

May I ask who is stating that torture is unreliable? Is this knowledge from people who have tried, or from people who want others not to try? I have heard it works quite well, not that I would know from personal experience, but....
Now if you are saying that torturing someone in a "cell structure" is unreliable, I might agree since I know no one who is experienced with torturing people in this type of structure, and a cell structure does compartmentalize the information.

I agree with RYD....

Here are a few ...

Senator John McCain, http://mccain.senate.gov/press_offic...cle.cfm?id=128

Brigadier General David R. Irvine. http://www.alternet.org/rights/28585/

Major (USAF) William D. Casebeer, Ph.D, http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE03/Casebeer03.html

And many more researchers and experts than I can quote here.

A quick Google search on "torture reliable" will produce more articles on the uncertainty of information gained through torture than the "reliability" of that information.

Here's an excellent discussion of the reliability and efficacity of torture by the Center for Defense Information http://www.cdi.org/program/document....&programID=39&

Also, here's a good interview with quotes from researchers, government leaders and FBI officials on torture and what alternatives are more effective http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/milit...ure_12-02.html

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

Oh, and about the Geneva Convention ... just because one side doesn't sign, or breaks their part of the agreement, we still don't have the right to break our part. The Convention puts the onus on the SIGNER to comply, not on the ones who don't. Adherence to the Convention is a mark of civilization and decency. If we throw that to the wind, we risk becoming self-justifying terrorists ourselves.

Wrong. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The point of the Geneva Conventions is reciprocity. Read the quote I cited before. Your unsupported statement dies in the face of what the Conventions actually say - not what you want them to say. Countries abide by the Conventions so that others will do so and both sides can expect decent treatment for their POWs. Doesn't work with terrorist groups who routinely torture, maim, and kill your people. Under the Conventions, a nation has no obligation to fight fire with limp-wristed gheyness. It can fight fire with fire. To do otherwise is pretty stupid.

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

Wrong. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The point of the Geneva Conventions is reciprocity. Read the quote I cited before. Your unsupported statement dies in the face of what the Conventions actually say - not what you want them to say.

Ok, let's review what the articles actually say, using the actual text of the 3rd Geneva Convention instead of Wikipedia's heavily commented version.

The point of the Convention is NOT reciprocity. Article 2 states:

"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof" (emphasis added).

Thus all signatories are bound by the Convention, under all conditions, regardless of whether the other "Power" has signed. To reiterate this point, the 2nd sentence closes a loophole that might allow a signatory to believe the Convention only applies where both Powers are signatories before the conflict, or where one Power is and the other isn't. (The loophole would exist when a non-signatory signs during the conflict, thus technically releasing the other party from its obligations under the Convention.)

Countries abide by the Conventions so that others will do so and both sides can expect decent treatment for their POWs. Doesn't work with terrorist groups who routinely torture, maim, and kill your people.

If "reciprocity", as I have shown, is not part of the signatory agreement, then a country's motivation to sign seems closer to civilization, ethics and morality than the self-serving agreement you describe.

Under the Conventions, a nation has no obligation to fight fire with limp-wristed gheyness. It can fight fire with fire. To do otherwise is pretty stupid.

Could you clarify "limp-wristed gheyness". Do you mean that fighting a war without complete reciprocity is ghey? I'm curious, because if you're right, we've got a lot of catching up to do. We better start recruiting suicide bombers, setting off IEDs, flying airlines into buildings and killing civilians pretty darn quick. Cause we sure don't want our friends, neighbors and the rest of the world to think we're a bunch of weak-kneed, yellow-bellied, fudge-packers.

Come on. If we can't figure out how to fight this war with honor and without torture, we aren't as smart as we ought to be. This isn't a playground, and our job isn't to "pay them back" for everything they did since 9/11. Our job is to protect our nation, and hopefully stabilize as much of the region as we can.

This reciprocity bullsh!t doesn't work. It only shows our enemies that we care just as little for human life ... that we have the same disrespect for human rights ... and that we can piss on everything God represents ... just like they do. And that's not going to do us a whole lot of good.

[DennisAJC]

Elect a Canadian President.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

The point of the Convention is NOT reciprocity. Article 2 states:

"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof" (emphasis added).

Thus all signatories are bound by the Convention, under all conditions, regardless of whether the other "Power" has signed. To reiterate this point, the 2nd sentence closes a loophole that might allow a signatory to believe the Convention only applies where both Powers are signatories before the conflict, or where one Power is and the other isn't. (The loophole would exist when a non-signatory signs during the conflict, thus technically releasing the other party from its obligations under the Convention.)
Come on. If we can't figure out how to fight this war with honor and without torture, we aren't as smart as we ought to be. This isn't a playground, and our job isn't to "pay them back" for everything they did since 9/11. Our job is to protect our nation, and hopefully stabilize as much of the region as we can.

This reciprocity bullsh!t doesn't work. It only shows our enemies that we care just as little for human life ... that we have the same disrespect for human rights ... and that we can piss on everything God represents ... just like they do. And that's not going to do us a whole lot of good.

LOL. "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof" (emphasis added).

In noticed you didn't bold the "in their mutual relations" part--the operative part. You don't understand much do you? What that says is that, if one of many powers to a conflict is not a signatory, all of the remainder of the signatories must still honor the Conventions among themselves--the signatories. Thus, if Russia, France, the U.S., and Al Quaeda are all at war, and the U.S. takes a Russian POW, it must treat the Russian prisoner as a POW under the GC. No one must treat the Al Qaeda terrorist as a POW under the GC.

The Geneva Conventions are not a theme or a poem about goodness. They are treaties, making them contractual provisions with specific obligations by which the parties to the contract, after thoughtful deliberation (in the U.S., a constitutional ratification process), agree to be bound. They are not decrees of general justness according to the fleeting desires of U.S. lefties.

The 3rd Geneva Convention clearly provides for an opt-in regime. It is the ?high contracting parties? to the agreement who are required to honor the terms with respect to the other high contracting parties. Others that have not signed the treaty may qualify for Geneva protections, but only by compliance with the GC's terms for the recognition of non-party rights. Al Qaeda has not done so.

Learn to read.

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

LOL. "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof" (emphasis added).

In noticed you didn't bold the "in their mutual relations" part--the operative part. You don't understand much do you? What that says is that, if one of many powers to a conflict is not a signatory, all of the remainder of the signatories must still honor the Conventions among themselves--the signatories. Thus, if Russia, France, the U.S., and Al Quaeda are all at war, and the U.S. takes a Russian POW, it must treat the Russian prisoner as a POW under the GC. No one must treat the Al Qaeda terrorist as a POW under the GC.

The Geneva Conventions are not a theme or a poem about goodness. They are treaties, making them contractual provisions with specific obligations by which the parties to the contract, after thoughtful deliberation (in the U.S., a constitutional ratification process), agree to be bound. They are not decrees of general justness according to the fleeting desires of U.S. lefties.

The 3rd Geneva Convention clearly provides for an opt-in regime. It is the “high contracting parties” to the agreement who are required to honor the terms with respect to the other high contracting parties. Others that have not signed the treaty may qualify for Geneva protections, but only by compliance with the GC's terms for the recognition of non-party rights. Al Qaeda has not done so.

Learn to read.

Finally found time to get back to this.

After researching this more, I see that you're right about the binding power of the Conventions. Since both the signatory and the non-signatory parties were named in this sentence, "in their mutual relations" appeared to refer to them both. But I see that in practice and general interpretation, that's not the case. I didn't realize this at first, but better late than never.

The Conventions are obviously contractual obligations. However, their stated purpose and intent has nothing to do with anyone's fleeting desires or whimsical intentions, whether conservative or liberal. The Conventions promote "justness" as you put it, through the mandate for impartial tribunals and the general improvement in the care and treatment of prisoners, civilians, relief agencies (like the Red Cross and Red Crescent) and others.

More specifically, the Convention covers civilians in occupied territories like Iraq and Afghanistan, civilians from any country in the way, militias, anyone who picks up arms thinking (even mistakenly) to defend their homes, POWs, and "unlawful combatants". They are all covered by the 3rd and 4th Geneva Conventions. Yes, even "Unlawful combatants" in Al Qaeda are covered until an impartial tribunal defines them as such, and even then they have rights (though fewer than a POW under the Convention).

[Wisha Haddan H3]

I really only have one more thing to say. The Geneva Conventions aren't a license to do whatever we want to non-signatories. They are the world's best attempt at curbing and limiting wartime abuses.

Whether or not a nation signed one of the Conventions, it shouldn't stop us from treating prisoners and civilians like human beings. Question them, interrogate them, and detain them ... well yeah, they're prisoners. Deny them scented soap, DVDs, finger bowls and moist towelettes ... of course. But beat them, whip them and hang them by their arms for hours on end? Drown them, burn them, remove their fingernails and then break their fingers? I don't think so.

Torture only satisfies our own whimsical need for revenge. It doesn't gather reliable information or make our country any safer. In the end, it only creates a dilemma where we can't let our prisoners go, because the hatred we inflame in them will only infect their families and communities, until even our allies become our enemies.

[f5fstop]

Just one more note.
Has any country that has signed the convention, ever stepped forward to help prevent a country from violating the convention rules? (Other than those countries yelling and screaming at the USA.) In other words, this document is worthless since in most cases, civilized countries would treat prisoners decently; whereas the non-civilized countries such as Iran, Iraq, or terrorists, would torture, threaten, and behead prisoners.
The USA is condemend by many countries due to Gitmo; however, are these same countries saying a damn thiing about the beheading of prisoners in Iraq? NO. My opinion of the Geneva convention it is a typical worthless piece of paper.
It sure didn't help in 'Nam, it won't help in the middle east. It might work great if we had a war with England.
So, why are we even discussing this pos paper signed or not signed by countries?

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

I really only have one more thing to say. The Geneva Conventions aren't a license to do whatever we want to non-signatories. ...

Of course. The GCs aren't a license to affirmatively do anything. They simply make it improper for signatories to do certain, specific things, which do not include--in the U.S.'s case--aggressively interrogating terrorist thugs who have been attempting to kill, or actually killing, Americans (and Iraqis) with terrorist methods so that we can save valuable lives going forward.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

This isn't a playground, blah, blah, blah

BTW: Protocol 1 does give some of the protections to non-signatory-guerrila fighters, but the United States did not ratify Protocol 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I

We didn't do so, because we're not stupid. The operative provision of Porotcol 1 giving combatant rights to guerrillas would never have been needed to have been added if your fantastically tortured interpretation of the 3rd GC had any merit.