AP Mobile: Internal CIA Report :Interogators threatenned to kill suspects children.

[Larry]

I will say this. If they are combatants that have attacked our troops, they are fair game. You guys act like this kind of thing didn't go on before. The Revolutionary War through the Vietnam conflict, these tactics were commonplace.

Funny, I seem to recall that during the Revolutionary War, enemy soldiers, once captured, were entitled to certain standards of treatment.

And that was before we went and promoted a bunch of standards about things that couldn't be done.

I was under the impression that this country's position has never been "anything goes".

[Larry]

the whole "what would you do if the terrorst did this to us.." scenarios are completely irrelevant. you know why?? There is no what if. They do it already? It's war, war is ugly. People get killed. People get beat to ****. Of course I don't like when it happens to our guys, what idiot would say they do?

and the question of -"what if the terrorist lied to our guys?" question is also irrelevant. They do that, and a hell of a lot worse, hence my posts about our own POW's. I'm not worried about some stupid lie to get intel. And if anyone thinks our troops are treated fair, equal and with respect if they are captured, well- you have your head in the sand.

Now if only our country's moral position was "we'll do whatever we want, as long as we can point at somebody, somewhere, who's done something that we claim is worse", then this whole discussion would be over.

[rdsknbill]

Funny, I seem to recall that during the Revolutionary War, enemy soldiers, once captured, were entitled to certain standards of treatment.

And that was before we went and promoted a bunch of standards about things that couldn't be done.

I was under the impression that this country's position has never been "anything goes".

Hmm. Never burned out towns for harboring Minutemen?

Come on Larry, you are WAY smarter than that. There was a certain "quarter" given, but they would kill each other for the most part

[Larry]

Hmm. Never burned out towns for harboring Minutemen?

Why would American troops burn out towns for harboring Minutemen?

And this is a discussion of the treatment of captured troops. And your claim that Americans have always abused captured prisoners.

[sacase]

He's shown you where he's getting his "90% innocent" number.

I'd ask where you're getting your 95% number, but I think we both already know, and I'd rather not have it confirmed.

I will observe that in the case of the famous 12 year old, that he was captured after direct conflict with our troops who had kicked in the door of his home.

Is that our definition of "terrorist" now? "Anyone who fights back when our army attacks them"?

I was under the impression that the standard term for "someone that our Army is currently fighting against" is "enemy". And that mour country not only has rules for dealing with enemies who have been captured, but that we've spent decades demanding that everybody else agree with the rules, too.

I will drop you a quick PM.

But to answer your other questions. The Genevca convention lays out laws of combatants. I don't have time to go into it right now but fighting against me and being my enemy doesn't give you geneva conventions protects. There are rules such as uniform, command structure, ID, etc that affords protections. Impropetu malitias are also covered, but foreign fighters are not. One major aspect that people like to forget. Following the costoms of war...whcih they do not do.

[helptheSKINS]

And they aren't going to. Because they don't want to join you in your fantasy world.

For the same reason that you won't answer my completely artificial, made-up, hypothetical:

You have a person. This person, as far as you know, has never harmed a single person. As far as you know, the closest he's ever been to a violent act was when a bunch of combat troops kicked in his door.

But he might know something.

He might not. And whatever he knows might turn out to be useful. Or it might not. Odds are, even after you find out what he knows, you still won't know if it's useful or not.

But there's a chance that maybe, days or weeks or months from now, something he says might fit with some other thing that somebody else said, which could turn into something bigger, which could turn into something really important.

But he won't talk to you. Frankly, he didn't like you folks before you kicked in his door. He isn't gonna tell you doodoo, just because he doesn't like you.

Now, you can beat it out of him.

But, whatever you do to him, 50 years from now, secret government police will be doing to American citizens who might know something about someone who disagrees with the government.

What do you do?

See? I can invent a magical, imaginary, universe where you have to agree with me or be a liar, too.

Larry, that was a sad post. Keep thinking/implying that interrogators are threatining/waterboarding everyone they come across. Enhanced interrogation is used rarely in extreme cases. As a poster stated before, you avoid directly answering questions by changing the topic or typing nonsense like you did above.

The fact is you will never answer the scenarios I proposed because you know it blows up your theory that you hold the moral high ground. If you said yes, you would threaten, waterboard or whatever necessary to try getting the info to either the parent or immenent attack scenario you are proven to be a hypocrite. If you said no, you are a coward for choosing a terrorists (yes, they are terrorists) feelings over your childs life or the life of other Americans. For that reason, I never expect you to answer the simple yes or no question. It's not fantasy as you like to call it, it's a completely legitimate scenario because those are the exact reasons enhanced interrogation exists.

[rdsknbill]

Why would American troops burn out towns for harboring Minutemen?

And this is a discussion of the treatment of captured troops. And your claim that Americans have always abused captured prisoners.

Never saw Andersonville?

It happens and HAS BEEN happening alot more than the public is aware of. If it saves American lives, then so be it

Here's some reading for you

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/5036.html

[ljs]

Now if only our country's moral position was "we'll do whatever we want, as long as we can point at somebody, somewhere, who's done something that we claim is worse", then this whole discussion would be over.

that's not even close to what I said, it's your twisted interpretation.

Never saw Andersonville?

It happens and HAS BEEN happening alot more than the public is aware of. If it saves American lives, then so be it

Here's some reading for you

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/5036.html

exactly- it's almost laughable at people who think we've always been saints and all of a sudden GWB and his cronies started this ****. I've been to andersonville twice. Both times I cried. People can't imagine what our troops have endured, including what we did to our own people. I'm not excusing it by any means- which is how Larry seems to interpret what some of us say- but to think our people are treated fair is ridiculous. I'm also not saying "B/c they did so can we." I'm merely being realistic about war, and what it entails.

The people fighting against us right now have 0 respect. They don't give a **** about any rules of engagement. They laugh in the face of America, Obama included. They don't give a **** if we have a Republican or Democrat in Office. They hate us. They will always hate us. Our job is to keep our people safe. And yes- if that means lying- then go for it.

[Larry]

I will drop you a quick PM.

But to answer your other questions. The Genevca convention lays out laws of combatants. I don't have time to go into it right now but fighting against me and being my enemy doesn't give you geneva conventions protects. There are rules such as uniform, command structure, ID, etc that affords protections. Impropetu malitias are also covered, but foreign fighters are not. One major aspect that people like to forget. Following the costoms of war...whcih they do not do.

Just sent 2 PMs in reply, before I saw this post.

Every time I get into these "I'm responding to your post from yesterday, so this may have been covered in a subsequent post" exchanges, I remember the film

2001

.

They really didn't go into it, but there's some dialog in the film that was put there to indicate that the astronauts were so out of touch with Earth that they would send a message, and then they wouldn't know until Earth's next message whether Earth got the first message.

Many of their "excahnges" with Mission Control began with the voice of Mission Control (who was actually a USAF air traffic controller who Kubrick hired specifically because he sounded American, military, and techie) saying something like "X-Ray Delta One, this is Mission Control. Roger your two niner three seven."

But, as to the "The Geneva Conventions don't apply" claim, I'll point out that The people who wrote them disagree. (Final paragraph)

In short, all the particular cases we have just been considering confirm a general principle which is embodied in all four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. ' There is no ' intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.

[GoSkins561]

Funny, I seem to recall that during the Revolutionary War, enemy soldiers, once captured, were entitled to certain standards of treatment.

And that was before we went and promoted a bunch of standards about things that couldn't be done.

I was under the impression that this country's position has never been "anything goes".

Larry, watch the Gitmo special on Nat Geo. Gitmo is cleaner than most people kep thier house, they can practice thier religion, they get fed 3 meals a day. This whole whining about how we treat terrorists is ridiculous, so what we hurt their feelings, they will get over it.

[Larry]

Larry, that was a sad post. Keep thinking/implying that interrogators are threatining/waterboarding everyone they come across.

And keep lifing in a fantasy world where people say the things that you want them to say.

The fact is you will never answer the scenarios I proposed because you know it blows up your theory that you hold the moral high ground.

I will never respond to your fantasy scenario because I do not believe that how someone would react in real world situation X should be determined by how they think they would react in imaginary world situation Y.

I prefer to discuss the actual people and the actual situations that we're actually in.

I think that if you ask a parent who's just been told that his teenage daughter has died while riding in a car driven by a drunk teenager, whether he'd support killing the driver of the car, a lot of them would say yes. That doesn't mean that whenever a cop pulls over a suspected DUI, he should kill the driver on the spot.

It's not fantasy as you like to call it, it's a completely legitimate scenario because those are the exact reasons enhanced interrogation exists.

Really?

Please, furnish me the details of how many people we've interrogated where we knew, in advance, that the person being interrogated posed an imminent threat to the life of a known person, which could be prevented right this instant.

Show me the details of the real-world situations in which it's known, in advance, that

A death is imminent.

This person knows how to prevent it.

Torture will work.

In time.

Yielding accurate information.

And no other options exist.

[Larry]

Never saw Andersonville?

It happens and HAS BEEN happening alot more than the public is aware of. If it saves American lives, then so be it

Here's some reading for you

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/5036.html

And your point is that you approve of what was done at Andersonville, you're proud of it, you claim it was effective, and we should do it all the time?

[ljs]

9/11 victim

9/11 EMS funeral

civil war POW

illustration of American POW in Viet Nam

WW2 American POW's

graphic- 9/11 victim (figured Mods wouldn't like this one plastered for view- so you get warning nsfw-unless you have a private office)

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i45/FloydAnderson/wtc_jump7.jpg

now, I'm sure some may come back and post the "torture" pics from Iraq- you're missing the point. I'm showing you here, that yes- American POW's have been treated like **** throughout history. So to say "how would you like it if they lied to one of us." is an insult to what these people actually went through.

[Larry]

that's not even close to what I said, it's your twisted interpretation.

exactly- it's almost laughable at people who think we've always been saints and all of a sudden GWB and his cronies started this ****.

----------

I'm not excusing it by any means- which is how Larry seems to interpret what some of us say- but to think our people are treated fair is ridiculous.

So the reason why you constantly bring it up in a thread in which no one is claiming that "our people are treated fair" is . . . ?

----------

Poster 1: "We shouldn't torture prisoners"

Poster 2: "Look what they do!!!"

If poster 2 isn't trying to claim that "what they do" justifies torture, then why is it there?

('Course, maybe, if you'd state your opinion (instead of stating mine) I wouldn't have to try to figure out what your position is.)

[ljs]

Larry, if you don't want me to answer a question, then don't ask. Apparently you don't like my answers to your questions.

my response in what our people go through is in response to all of the posts earlier in this thread claiming our people are treated fairly and with respect. Obvsiously that isn't really true now is it?

carry on with your self righteous morality....

[Larry]

my response in what our people go through is in response to all of the posts earlier in this thread claiming our people are treated fairly and with respect.

Bet you can't find one.

[jkypoo]

How clueless do you have to be. I would estimate well over 95% of the people we have picked up were picked up after direct confflict with our troops.[/Quote]

Unfortunately, your estimate doesn't count for much. I am not saying you are wrong, but calling me clueless because of an estimate that you came up with is kind of moronic. If you can somehow back it up, then we can talk.

Once again, war is not a law enforcment action. You really need to quit with this, suspected, evidence, charging and convicting crap. Our soldiers do not go out and "collect evidence" on the battlefield. The reason they are classified as detainee's is because they do not fall into POW status according the the Geneva convention. If you actually read the Geneva convention they don't fall into ANY status.[/Quote]

I never said it was a law enforcement action. And I am not the one that termed them "suspected terrorists" or "detainees," the government did. My point is that the terms imply no guilt, only suspected guilt. The people being tortured are not terrorists, criminals, or prisoners. And the reason that they are not classified as anything other than detainees is because then they would be guaranteed certain due processes and particular rights as such. The term is relatively recent, created to circumvent the Conventions. You have done nothing in that quote but back up what I have been saying all along. If you really think that the term "suspect" or "detainee" makes someone a criminal or terrorist, then you are an unfortunate person.

Terrorism IS a muslim issue and your a fool if you believe otherwise. A large Majority of the worlds terrorist attacks in the past 20 years have been committted by Muslims. Islamic terroism is a HUGE issue, quit trying to pretend its not.[/Quote]

So, I am a fool because I don't spout ill-informed, ignorant, prejudice, propaganda? Because I see the bigger picture? Because I refuse to sit around recited what I am told? Apparently the term "fool" is more relative than I suspected. Maybe you should invest in a mirror.

I will be blunt, if Joe picks up a terrorist on the Battlefield and says Haji was shooting at me. I am going to be Joe. If Haji gets roughed up a little bit after he is captured by Joe I am not going to care. The real problem is people like you. You give the terrorists reason to think that we are weak. They know when they get picked up for shooting and blowing up American soldiers all they have to say is that they were tortured and people like you will come screaming to defend them. They play you for fools and you don't even realize it.[/Quote]

We are not talking about wartime events taking place on a battlefield. We are talking about torturing suspects in a facility removed from the actual battlefield, so your scenario is worthless. And I would counter that you are the real problem, because it is not weak to be wise or rise above the nature of your enemy, in fact it takes far more strength. Yours is a weakness to degrade the ideals that this country has fought so long to establish and defend. We are fighting for the American way, and your perverted assumptions about that way are far removed from that ideal. And, again, I have and will not defend terrorists. We are talking about suspects. Again, not my term, the governments.

I will answer your christian question. I could give a rats ass if they pissed on a bible. Its not skin of my back and yes I am chistian. Crap like that doesn't offend me. I already know they hate any religeon that is not Islam. They don't respect anything about anyone but themselves so why should I give them any respect.[/Quote]

Maybe you misread the question. Or maybe you are obtuse. The question was a counter question. I asked, would you consider it torture if a Christian was forced to urinate on a bible or defecate on a cross/rosary/crucifix? That is not the question you responded to, was it?

How many Muslims do you actually know? Worked with? Friends with? I agree there are a ton of good muslims out there, in fact a large majority of them are good. The problem resides with the 1% that have perverted the religion and have been using it for their own personal power gains. It is the extreamists that are the problem.[/Quote]

Again, you have contradicted yourself and helped to prove one of my previous points. Earlier you said it was a Muslim problem, which is incorrect. I would, however, partially agree with the fact that it is an extremist problem, or a problem involving those that have perverted the religion. Much like abortion clinic bombings are not the result of Christians as a whole, but Christian extremists, or Christians who have perverted the religion.

[helptheSKINS]

And keep lifing in a fantasy world where people say the things that you want them to say.

I will never respond to your fantasy scenario because I do not believe that how someone would react in real world situation X should be determined by how they think they would react in imaginary world situation Y.

I prefer to discuss the actual people and the actual situations that we're actually in.

I think that if you ask a parent who's just been told that his teenage daughter has died while riding in a car driven by a drunk teenager, whether he'd support killing the driver of the car, a lot of them would say yes. That doesn't mean that whenever a cop pulls over a suspected DUI, he should kill the driver on the spot.

Really?

Please, furnish me the details of how many people we've interrogated where we knew, in advance, that the person being interrogated posed an imminent threat to the life of a known person, which could be prevented right this instant.

Show me the details of the real-world situations in which it's known, in advance, that

A death is imminent.

This person knows how to prevent it.

Torture will work.

In time.

Yielding accurate information.

And no other options exist.

Larry, this is getting more pathetic by the post. Here's another attempt to get you to answer a simple question. I look forward to you finding an excuse not to answer this one as well. Let me guess, it's not realistic because this exact situation didn't occur. It's funny if nothing else.

September 10, 2001: An agent in Saudi Arabia overhears a conversation between AQ members regarding major attacks that will happen the following day. They are excited about finally bringing Jihad to the land of evil, the US. They mention some of the terrorists involved in the planning and attacks. The agent does not know how to find the terrorist involved in the attack but knows exactly where to find the terrorist that he is listening to:

The agent notifies his team and the launches a mission immediately which results in the capture of the terrorist with detailed information about the attack as well. They now have the terrorist in custody ready for interrogation. The attacks scheduled for the next day, September 11th are now less than 12 hours away.

A) Start by asking nicely. After asking nicely without a response move on to threats and other enhanced methods. While you aren't guaranteed accurate information, you don't have time to let the subject realize he is a bad person and spill the beans.

B)Start by asking nicely. After asking nicely without a response continue to ask nicely. If you don't get answers, at least you know you didn't stoop to the level of making verbal threats or waterboarding.

It's your call Larry (or JMS, jkypoo, ect).

A or B?

[jkypoo]

What if one of your children were kidnapped and they had caught one of the guys, and he admitted that he helped do it. Would you approve any enhanced interrogation techniques to save your child? Or would you stick to no psychological manipulation, raising of voices, and no lying to the criminal to get the information needed to help you child. These people are mass murderers and hardened criminals that would cut off your head in a heartbeat, they do not respond to politeness.

If he admitted that he helped do it, then he would not longer be a suspect, would he? Go back and read the OP and the attached article. We are talking about suspects who have not been charged, tried, or found guilty of anything. We are not talking about terrorists or criminals. Suspects. Simply people who are suspected of some wrong doing.

And...who are "these people." Please enlighten me, oh wise one.

[jkypoo]

How about this,the vast majority of terrorists and terrorist groups are muslim. And yes Jypoo, there are 10's of thousands. I don't know how to copy and paste from my phone so I will update my facts later.

I don't care about my Muslim neighbors, that has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

There are "10's of thousands of Muslim terrorists that would fin[d] plenty of joy in chopping [my] kids heads off on live TV?" You have that information on your phone. Because that specific quote was what I disbelieved. I doubt you have information to support such an outlandish claim. Not only would you need to know me, my "kids," but also the psyche of everyone involved in the "they" group and their access to technology such as broadcasting for live TV. Think before you assume to know, please.

And the Muslim neighbors point was brought up to contrast other points about the supposed "they" group. To contrast the fact that some posters say "it is a Muslim problem" without qualifying the statement in any way. Again, think before you assume. Make sure it is a general statement or point before you spend time countering it.

We are discussing the treatment of people that we have picked up fighting along side terrorist groups such as AQ and the Taliban aka Terrorist Organizations.[/Quote]

No we are not. Those would be POW's or war criminals. We are talking about suspected terrorists. We are talking about detainees. There is a difference, as I have explained numerous times.

[ljs]

Bet you can't find one.

Bet I can:)

That is why we need to treat others well, so our own people are well treated.

...................

How many of our captured soldiers, men AND women, have you seen executed on TV? Most of them have been American workers, and they were executed by the worst of the worst. Otherwise, there are examples of captured US soldiers who have been treated decently by the enemy.

.

I said this....

I can't even imagine spending months, or years as a POW, enduring what these people endured every single day. And you want to ***** and complain becaus we LIED to get intel? The people living in Gitmo are treated a hell of a lot better than any of our POW's could ever have hoped for.

TO which Baculus responded with:

"One of those people who lived though those conditions completely disagrees with you. His name is John McCain."

[Larry]

Larry, this is getting more pathetic by the post.

You're right. It is.

And if you put your imaginary world in even bigger print, it will still be an imaginary world.

Enjoy it. Have fun. Marvel at the splendor you've created.

(And then, if you decide you'd like to experiment with a different world? Read page 2 of this thread.)

[Smoot Point Really]

Are we talking about the 109-page internal report yet? I linked it earlier in this thread. Has anyone read it? I mean, at least debate the legalities and contents of the actual report instead of bashing each other over whose irrelevant arguments are more fantasy vs. reality.

[Larry]

Bet I can:)

Congratulations. That was a lot closer that I thought you could come up with.

I will point out that the portion of his post which you quoted:

How many of our captured soldiers, men AND women, have you seen executed on TV? Most of them have been American workers, and they were executed by the worst of the worst. Otherwise, there are examples of captured US soldiers who have been treated decently by the enemy.

does contain something that's a bit important. (I've highlighted them.)

Bac isn't saying "US prisoners have always been treated perfectly".

His first quote is arguing (at least, as I read it) that one of the reasons why we agree to things like the Geneva Conventions is in the hopes that it will be reciprocated. (Not that they are guaranteed to be reciprocated.)

His second (IMO) is that yes, some real atrocities have happened, but that in general they've been treated, well, decently. (Something which I might disagree with, but which I'm certain depends on your own definition of "decently".)

But I'll say, again: His post was a lot closer to what you stated, than I had remembered. I stand corrected.

[helptheSKINS]

You're right. It is.

And if you put your imaginary world in even bigger print, it will still be an imaginary world.

Enjoy it. Have fun. Marvel at the splendor you've created.

(And then, if you decide you'd like to experiment with a different world? Read page 2 of this thread.)

You can't even commit to saying you would threaten or waterboard a terrorist to possibly prevent 9/11 Thanks for making it even more obvious to everyone that your posts are all frill with no substance. Well done