Was the usage of torture foreseeable?

[Nova Andromeda]

--Who here did not think, once Bush setup Guantanamo, that extensive use of torture by the U.S. was foreseeable? Remember that people like O'Reilly from Fox News spent quite a bit of effort trying to justify its use around the time that Guantanamo was setup.

definition of torture
definition of wound: You have to select "wound" from the list.
definition of pain

[Aaron]

I think that there was a pretty good chance of something like this happening after Gitmo was setup. After all the US government has been systematically demonizing the Arab world since 9/11. As I mentioned in another thread all the pieces where in place for war crimes to happen. Canada experianced a similar situation in Somalia when a teenaged Somali was tortured and killed by the Canadian Airborn Regiment. All the factors that exist in Iraq today existed in 91 in Somalia, the demonization of the locals by the chain of command, and the obvious approval for extreme measures on captives by the same chain of command.

[LadyTevar]

I thought we would be above such a thing... no matter how demonized the enemy had become, there should have been more responsiblity and action by the superiors to prevent this from occurring.

[Axis Kast]

The torture of prisoners is a foregone conclusion. In every war.

The abuse of prisoners is a foregone conclusion. In every war.

[Nova Andromeda]

The torture of prisoners is a foregone conclusion. In every war.

The abuse of prisoners is a foregone conclusion. In every war.

--Care to back up these statements with some form of objective explanation and explain why it must so extensive in the above case?

[Knife]

Putting sacks over their heads and making them listen to rock and roll? I figured that would happen.

Beating the piss out of them? I figured we were above such shit.

Mocking them and taking sick pictures? Not happy nor did I think that the chain of command would be so broken as to let such things happen.

Death or Murder? To my knowledge nothing has been proven and I thought we were above it.

So really, torture=humiliation, I knew it would happen some where, some how.

Torture=beating the shit out of or killing, I didn't expect.

[GySgt. Hartman]

Torture=beating the shit out of or killing, I didn't expect.

Of course it was going to happen. If you tell a soldier "Torture this terrorist and you might prevent another 9/11", what do you think he's most likely going to do? Do you really think the US is above "torture for national security"?

[Knife]

Torture=beating the shit out of or killing, I didn't expect.

Of course it was going to happen. If you tell a soldier "Torture this terrorist and you might prevent another 9/11", what do you think he's most likely going to do? Do you really think the US is above "torture for national security"?

Yes, yes I do. The NCO corps is supposed to be professional enough to stop this kind of shit, let alone the officers.

If a soldier buttstroked someone while out on patrol, seeing if armed men were in the next room, I'd see it and even condone it. But in an interogation setting, physical pain only gets you poisoned answers. They'll tell you what ever you need to know to stop the pain. I expected professionalism out of MY Marines and I expect it out of the men and women over there now.

I don't see this issue as some huge political problem, rather I see it as an abuse and those dircetly involved and their immeadiate chain of command need to go down in flames for it. I don't see this as Bush's fault nor Rummies.

[Aaron]

Yes, yes I do. The NCO corps is supposed to be professional enough to stop this kind of shit, let alone the officers.

If a soldier buttstroked someone while out on patrol, seeing if armed men were in the next room, I'd see it and even condone it. But in an interogation setting, physical pain only gets you poisoned answers. They'll tell you what ever you need to know to stop the pain. I expected professionalism out of MY Marines and I expect it out of the men and women over there now.

I don't see this issue as some huge political problem, rather I see it as an abuse and those dircetly involved and their immeadiate chain of command need to go down in flames for it. I don't see this as Bush's fault nor Rummies.

Yes the NCO Corps is supposed to be able to stop this shit, but as Shep posted here this is a unit rife with discipline problems. The NCO cadre in this unit was obviously already flawed. It's evident to me that the officers in the chain of command condoned this behavior and may even have encouraged it, how else would you get these soldiers to disregard the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ so easily.

This shouldn't have become a political problem, if they had been open about it it might not have become one. But they tried to cover it up, which makes things look really bad. It's not really Bush or Rumsfield's fault but as the Commander in Chief and the Chief of Defense staff they are responsible for their soldiers behavior. This is a concept that has taken root in modern western armies in that a superior is always responsible for the actions of his/her soldiers regardless of whether they were there or not.

[Howedar]

I am not especially surprised, but I can't say I expected torture to occur.

[Axis Kast]

Care to back up these statements with some form of objective explanation and explain why it must so extensive in the above case?

Human nature. Offer one group that kind of power over another - especially suffused with the urgency and emotion of war -, and you're almost bound to get abuse even if strict prohibitions are already in place.

Second, I expect the U.S. military to use torture. There are people who are paid to pull out other men's fingernails in every country. Frankly, we sometimes need them.

I concur that Bush was correct to offer an apology, and that Rumsfeld is liable for scrutiny. Of course, however, removing him would do nothing for this problem.

[Illuminatus Primus]

We need them?

I see you're still the local foundry of entirely cruel foriegn policy.

[Aaron]

Second, I expect the U.S. military to use torture. There are people who are paid to pull out other men's fingernails in every country. Frankly, we sometimes need them.

I concur that Bush was correct to offer an apology, and that Rumsfeld is liable for scrutiny. Of course, however, removing him would do nothing for this problem.

Are you out of your mind? By using these technique's we send a message to other countries that it is ok to torture POW's. Now when coalition soldiers are captured we can expect them to be tortured as retaliation. And there is a precedence for this, during the Dieppe raid in WWII the Canadians where ordered to handcuff German POW's which lead to the Germans handcuffing Canadians that were already POW's.

[Axis Kast]

We need them?

I see you're still the local foundry of entirely cruel foriegn policy.

Arguably. If, for example, truth serum were to fail, and we were dealing with somebody we knew had information vital to our national security? Osama Bin Laden, for example.

Are you out of your mind? By using these technique's we send a message to other countries that it is ok to torture POW's. Now when coalition soldiers are captured we can expect them to be tortured as retaliation. And there is a precedence for this, during the Dieppe raid in WWII the Canadians where ordered to handcuff German POW's which lead to the Germans handcuffing Canadians that were already POW's.

I didn't say we should air using these techniques to the rest of the world. Most of the time, the Geneva Convention should be stood by percisely because of the reasons you have listed. Of course, keeping torture in our potential repertoire is still a necessary for the very serious cases.

[Aaron]

I didn't say we should air using these techniques to the rest of the world. Most of the time, the Geneva Convention should be stood by percisely because of the reasons you have listed. Of course, keeping torture in our potential repertoire is still a necessary for the very serious cases.

This would make the USA no better than those that they oppose, regardless of whether it's done in secret or not. This stuff gets out, it always does. This latest crisis is the perfect example, the US government tried to cover it up and it got out anyways. If this treatment is allowed to be condoned, then the west is no better than Saddams regime was and we have no right to continue with the occupation.

[Stark]

I would have though the US military would take pains to be above reproach or suspicion; the conduct of the upper echelons during this debacle is hardly likely do breed confidence in America, or its honesty, fairness, etc etc. Not that Americans care, but their professional soldiers should.

[Aaron]

I would have though the US military would take pains to be above reproach or suspicion; the conduct of the upper echelons during this debacle is hardly likely do breed confidence in America, or its honesty, fairness, etc etc. Not that Americans care, but their professional soldiers should.

If I was a professional US soldier I'd be pissed at these guys. After all it's pretty much turned the rest of the Arab world against the USA. And it's painted all the US soldiers with the same brush, now eveyone thinks that their all like that. Hell I was pissed when the guys from the Canadian Airborne Regiment tortured and killed that Somali teen and I wasn't in the military when that happened. But here it is 13 years later and I still hear people assuming that all Canadian soldiers are like those few bad apples, A few have done it to my face, while I was in uniform.

[Crown]

Honestly, when you set up a system where there is no outside observation for the prisoners (lawyers, hamanitarian groups, politicians visiting), you are begging for this shit to happen!

Just to clarify; all it needs is someone who is not involved in anyway shape or form with the people who are holding them to observe the prisoner's condition, and file an independant report to the Pentagon on their condition and treatment.

[Nova Andromeda]

Care to back up these statements with some form of objective explanation and explain why it must so extensive in the above case?

Human nature. Offer one group that kind of power over another - especially suffused with the urgency and emotion of war -, and you're almost bound to get abuse even if strict prohibitions are already in place.

Second, I expect the U.S. military to use torture. There are people who are paid to pull out other men's fingernails in every country. Frankly, we sometimes need them.

I concur that Bush was correct to offer an apology, and that Rumsfeld is liable for scrutiny. Of course, however, removing him would do nothing for this problem.

--I find it terribly insulting for you to accuse me of having such a nature. I assure you that I would not torture people because it is in my nature and that not even the urgency or emotion of war would necessarily lead to such actions. There is not a nation on this planet with sufficient protections against abuse to justify the use of torture.
-Quite frankly, attitudes like yours make peace very difficult to acheive. You simply inflame people's hate unnecessarily and I wonder if you even realize it.

[Darth Wong]

I don't see this issue as some huge political problem, rather I see it as an abuse and those dircetly involved and their immeadiate chain of command need to go down in flames for it. I don't see this as Bush's fault nor Rummies.

You are confusing "responsibility because he ordered people to do it" with "responsibility due to willful negligence". The evidence is overwhelming that Rumsfeld willfully and consciously chose to ignore reports of abuse (which have been streaming in for years now, despite his "aw shucks" assertion that he just heard about it). Even the traditionally Bush brown-nosing network CNN has been airing reports on how the administration had been receiving reports of abuse for a very long time, and Rumsfeld has been casually dismissing them as "international hyperventilation" for a very long time. Since the year 2002, in fact.

Put yourself in Rumsfeld's shoes and ask if you would have dismissed the reports (which began during the Afghanistan campaign, never mind Iraq) so casually, without even bothering to investigate. When people like the Red Cross try to tell you that something is wrong, and you just roll your eyes and say "yeah, whatever", anything which happens from that point on is your fucking fault.

[Vympel]

Abuse doesn't work

[BoredShirtless]

Put yourself in Rumsfeld's shoes and ask if you would have dismissed the reports (which began during the Afghanistan campaign, never mind Iraq) so casually, without even bothering to investigate. When people like the Red Cross try to tell you that something is wrong, and you just roll your eyes and say "yeah, whatever", anything which happens from that point on is your fucking fault.

Wait, Rumsfeld dismissed the Red Cross reports? I thought he said an investigation was started as soon as he felt the wind of what was happening in Afghanistand and Iraq. Do you have a source for this claim?

[Stuart Mackey]

The torture of prisoners is a foregone conclusion. In every war.

The abuse of prisoners is a foregone conclusion. In every war.

If you think that, then you are no better than the fucks who practice it.

[Stuart Mackey]

Put yourself in Rumsfeld's shoes and ask if you would have dismissed the reports (which began during the Afghanistan campaign, never mind Iraq) so casually, without even bothering to investigate. When people like the Red Cross try to tell you that something is wrong, and you just roll your eyes and say "yeah, whatever", anything which happens from that point on is your fucking fault.

Wait, Rumsfeld dismissed the Red Cross reports? I thought he said an investigation was started as soon as he felt the wind of what was happening in Afghanistand and Iraq. Do you have a source for this claim?

Its all over the news..I saw more reports on the 6 o'clock news tonight about it.

[Vohu Manah]

Put yourself in Rumsfeld's shoes and ask if you would have dismissed the reports (which began during the Afghanistan campaign, never mind Iraq) so casually, without even bothering to investigate. When people like the Red Cross try to tell you that something is wrong, and you just roll your eyes and say "yeah, whatever", anything which happens from that point on is your fucking fault.

Wait, Rumsfeld dismissed the Red Cross reports? I thought he said an investigation was started as soon as he felt the wind of what was happening in Afghanistand and Iraq. Do you have a source for this claim?

Its all over the news..I saw more reports on the 6 o'clock news tonight about it.

Like this? Or this (related to British units)?