Was the usage of torture foreseeable?

[Stuart Mackey]

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

Yeah

[Axis Kast]

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.

Rights are an abstraction. You possess no “rights” as you are defining them – merely permission from – and toleration by – the powerful. The same is also true in the international community.

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

Because I have stated my belief that human nature will never improve, I am no better than those who do commit those crimes? Well, that’s an interesting connection you draw there. Just chomping at the bit, are we?

[BoredShirtless]

From http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/ ... index.html

Hersh reports that military commanders did nothing about allegations of abuse from the International Committee of the Red Cross until a military policeman turned over a computer disk containing images of prisoners forced to simulate homosexual acts while American soldiers watched.

The real question is did Rumsfeld do nothing? If yes, then calls to have his head makes sense [from an American POV; his head should have been taken off long ago [figuratively]]. Otherwise, if he acted straight away, then Rumsfeld shouldn't have to resign or be fired.

[Stuart Mackey]

Because I have stated my belief that human nature will never improve, I am no better than those who do commit those crimes? Well, that’s an interesting connection you draw there. Just chomping at the bit, are we?

Bullshit.
You said

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

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

You are stating this as a fact.

Ever hear of the term 'Hitlers willing executioners'?
That you accept this is tantamont to approving of it.

[Aaron]

Rights are an abstraction. You possess no “rights” as you are defining them – merely permission from – and toleration by – the powerful. The same is also true in the international community.

What are you talking about Kast? I didn't make any points in regards to "rights", I just stated that this stuff can never be effectively covered up, nor should it be.

Thats better, can a mod delete the above post?

[Patrick Degan]

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

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

Just can't resist the lure of Hitlerian logic, can you?

[Axis Kast]

You are stating this as a fact.

Ever hear of the term 'Hitlers willing executioners'?
That you accept this is tantamont to approving of it.

Ah, so if I were to say that I firmly believe that there will always be racism and race hatred in this world, that would make me a racist?

I didn't accept anything but the fact that no war is a "clean" war. When you put some men in power over others, there will be abuse some of the time.

[Darth Wong]

I didn't accept anything but the fact that no war is a "clean" war. When you put some men in power over others, there will be abuse some of the time.

Nice black/white fallacy. No war is perfectly clean; so what? In what way is this remotely relevant to the fact that the abuses at this prison should have been foreseen and prevented?

[Axis Kast]

Nice black/white fallacy. No war is perfectly clean; so what? In what way is this remotely relevant to the fact that the abuses at this prison should have been foreseen and prevented?

The question was whether torture was forseeable. I think so. Of course, acknowledging that torture will take place as a result of circumstance does not help one avoid it. In fact, if orders were ignored and the chain of command broke down for negligence, there was nothing that could have been done to prevent it. Merely something to be done to respond to it.

[Stuart Mackey]

You are stating this as a fact.

Ever hear of the term 'Hitlers willing executioners'?
That you accept this is tantamont to approving of it.

Ah, so if I were to say that I firmly believe that there will always be racism and race hatred in this world, that would make me a racist?

I didn't accept anything but the fact that no war is a "clean" war. When you put some men in power over others, there will be abuse some of the time.

As Mike said..black and white fallacy.
We are talking about a a prison, a controlled environment, as such there is no excuse for what happned if it is against the law. If we are to say 'oh, its bound to happen' or "a forgone conclusion" then we become morally culpable, especially in a democracy, of tolerating it and tolerating it it is acceptance. These actions are against the law, in saying what you said you are obviously support, by toleration, something that is illegal. Such attitudes as yours are what alows such things to happen.

[Stuart Mackey]

Nice black/white fallacy. No war is perfectly clean; so what? In what way is this remotely relevant to the fact that the abuses at this prison should have been foreseen and prevented?

The question was whether torture was forseeable. I think so. Of course, acknowledging that torture will take place as a result of circumstance does not help one avoid it. In fact, if orders were ignored and the chain of command broke down for negligence, there was nothing that could have been done to prevent it. Merely something to be done to respond to it.

Aint you just the bullshit artist? The point is that it should never have happned in the first place had proper standards been adhered to.
If torture happned in a millitary run prison, it was because proper supervision was not performed right through the chain of command, or it was deliberate policy to perform this torture.

Your logic is so fucked up its no longer logic.

[Axis Kast]

As Mike said..black and white fallacy.
We are talking about a a prison, a controlled environment, as such there is no excuse for what happned if it is against the law.

Just because we punish somebody in the end doesn't mean what went on there was avoidable. People abuse power. If violations of the Geneva Convention were permitted across the board by every major officer and commander at that prison, original orders obviously didn't matter much. People make singular decisions; it's impossible to screen out everyone who's going to cross the line.

If we are to say 'oh, its bound to happen' or "a forgone conclusion" then we become morally culpable, especially in a democracy, of tolerating it and tolerating it it is acceptance.

Bullshit. This is you trying to tarnish me no matter how stupid it makes you look.

Telling you that I'm convinced we'll always have racism and race hatred in this world doesn't make me a racist or a hate-monger. It makes me a pessimist.

No matter how many times one attempts to logically defend integration, desegregation, and positive race relations, there are always those ready to hate for illogical reasons and on the basis of illogical beliefs. If I can't change that, it's not my fault.

These actions are against the law, in saying what you said you are obviously support, by toleration, something that is illegal. Such attitudes as yours are what alows such things to happen.

This is the most ridiculous fallacy I've ever heard. Thinking that there will always be a breakdown in human civility in desperate situations makes me uncivil myself? Or culpable of toleration? No, it doesn't. It makes me a realist.

Aint you just the bullshit artist? The point is that it should never have happned in the first place had proper standards been adhered to.
If torture happned in a millitary run prison, it was because proper supervision was not performed right through the chain of command, or it was deliberate policy to perform this torture.

And if it was the chain of command? There was no realiable way to remove those responsible before it happened. Perhaps you'd care to explain how we can avoid torture or abuse each and every time. Oh, that's right - you can't.

[Jalinth]

Nice black/white fallacy. No war is perfectly clean; so what? In what way is this remotely relevant to the fact that the abuses at this prison should have been foreseen and prevented?

The question was whether torture was forseeable. I think so. Of course, acknowledging that torture will take place as a result of circumstance does not help one avoid it. In fact, if orders were ignored and the chain of command broke down for negligence, there was nothing that could have been done to prevent it. Merely something to be done to respond to it.

Aint you just the bullshit artist? The point is that it should never have happned in the first place had proper standards been adhered to.
If torture happned in a millitary run prison, it was because proper supervision was not performed right through the chain of command, or it was deliberate policy to perform this torture.

Your{/quote]

A failure in the chain of command is pretty damn serious in the military. Also, two separate groups were present in the prison (at least) - the MPs and MI. Each has their own separate chain of command that only meet way up, so problems had to be ignored or suppressed by both groups.

Also, this is supposed to be a prison - this isn't like being captured in the field and quickly (and roughly) interrogated. I'm afraid that a significant part of what took place was under orders (or at least at the strong "suggestion") of someone. Most likely, MI is responsible - I can't see an MP brigade of reservists going completely off their rockers without some outside assistance. Most MPs would not have the necessary experience/knowledge to think out the really rough stuff they are shown doing. I wonder who "helped" them in deciding what to do and when.

Personally, this is where Rummy needs to fall on his sword - someone has to take responsibility - everyone at the moment is saying "I followed orders", "didn't know" or "I was overruled". It sounds like the sponsorship scandal up in Canada. As a good measure, fire/suspend a couple of upper generals for the mess and then resign. It is about the only honourable thing left to do in the circumstances.

[Axis Kast]

Aint you just the bullshit artist?

I'm not the one insisting that pessimism about a problem equals complete tolleration of and support for it. Moron.

The point is that it should never have happned in the first place had proper standards been adhered to. If torture happned in a millitary run prison, it was because proper supervision was not performed right through the chain of command, or it was deliberate policy to perform this torture.

And I'm giving my opinion that even if there had been complete and prior oversight, this still could have happened. No matter how many orders were issued to the contrary, there was always a danger that somebody would abuse their power. If just one officer does it, his entire unit could easily follow suit for lack of consequences.

A failure in the chain of command is pretty damn serious in the military. Also, two separate groups were present in the prison (at least) - the MPs and MI. Each has their own separate chain of command that only meet way up, so problems had to be ignored or suppressed by both groups.

Also, this is supposed to be a prison - this isn't like being captured in the field and quickly (and roughly) interrogated. I'm afraid that a significant part of what took place was under orders (or at least at the strong "suggestion") of someone. Most likely, MI is responsible - I can't see an MP brigade of reservists going completely off their rockers without some outside assistance. Most MPs would not have the necessary experience/knowledge to think out the really rough stuff they are shown doing. I wonder who "helped" them in deciding what to do and when.

And nobody's saying that this needn't be looked into. What I am saying is that we should not be surprised that incidents such as this occur. The world is not a nice place, for lack of a better term.

Personally, this is where Rummy needs to fall on his sword - someone has to take responsibility - everyone at the moment is saying "I followed orders", "didn't know" or "I was overruled". It sounds like the sponsorship scandal up in Canada. As a good measure, fire/suspend a couple of upper generals for the mess and then resign. It is about the only honourable thing left to do in the circumstances.

And that is really going to help matters much? To bring in somebody new and unskilled in breaking institutional barriers already in place? If it was an unavoidable scandal, punishing Rumsfeld is counter-productive.

[Stuart Mackey]

As Mike said..black and white fallacy.
We are talking about a a prison, a controlled environment, as such there is no excuse for what happned if it is against the law.

Just because we punish somebody in the end doesn't mean what went on there was avoidable. People abuse power. If violations of the Geneva Convention were permitted across the board by every major officer and commander at that prison, original orders obviously didn't matter much. People make singular decisions; it's impossible to screen out everyone who's going to cross the line.

What do you not understand about a controlled environment?

If we are to say 'oh, its bound to happen' or "a forgone conclusion" then we become morally culpable, especially in a democracy, of tolerating it and tolerating it it is acceptance.

Bullshit. This is you trying to tarnish me no matter how stupid it makes you look.

Telling you that I'm convinced we'll always have racism and race hatred in this world doesn't make me a racist or a hate-monger. It makes me a pessimist.

No matter how many times one attempts to logically defend integration, desegregation, and positive race relations, there are always those ready to hate for illogical reasons and on the basis of illogical beliefs. If I can't change that, it's not my fault.

A pathetic attempt at a strawman
you said

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

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

the word 'is' is what counts here in saying this you state that you accept torture in wartime. Accepting it is tantamount o approving it.

These actions are against the law, in saying what you said you are obviously support, by toleration, something that is illegal. Such attitudes as yours are what alows such things to happen.

This is the most ridiculous fallacy I've ever heard. Thinking that there will always be a breakdown in human civility in desperate situations makes me uncivil myself? Or culpable of toleration? No, it doesn't. It makes me a realist.

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

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

You are prepared to tolerate it, therefor you accept it. Indoing so you give moral sanction to those who do it. You say so yourself, was slavery a forgone concltion in the USA? Wilberforce did not accpet it as a forgone conlution. If you tolerate it you give it moral sanction, how else do you think so few Jews from scandinavia were sent to the death camps? because they did not tolerate it.
To use the status quo or 'realism' as an exuse to do nothing is to give moral sanction to such illegal acts because without opposition they will continue.

Aint you just the bullshit artist? The point is that it should never have happned in the first place had proper standards been adhered to.
If torture happned in a millitary run prison, it was because proper supervision was not performed right through the chain of command, or it was deliberate policy to perform this torture.

And if it was the chain of command? There was no realiable way to remove those responsible before it happened. Perhaps you'd care to explain how we can avoid torture or abuse each and every time. Oh, that's right - you can't.

Jesus, you are have the comprehention of a lobotomised rodent..If the proper supervision had been in place it would not have happned, because it was illegal and illegal acts should not happen in a properly supervised, controlled environment. I do not claim that all instances can be avoided but the sytematic, documented and notified by the Red Cross to the US Dept of Defence, abuse of prisoners over months at a time was avoidable..I wait with anticipation of how you can expalain that away.

[Axis Kast]

What do you not understand about a controlled environment?

What the fuck are you talking about? "A controlled environment." The highest people at those prisons only had to sit back and do nothing for others to violate people's rights. You can't create a human environment in which deviation from norms or expectation is impossible.

the word 'is' is what counts here in saying this you state that you accept torture in wartime. Accepting it is tantamount o approving it.

No, you fucking moron. I am stating what I believe to be fact. That human beings in highly unusual and stressful situations will cross lines. You can try to prevent it, but you'll never be 100% effective.

You are prepared to tolerate it, therefor you accept it. Indoing so you give moral sanction to those who do it. You say so yourself, was slavery a forgone concltion in the USA? Wilberforce did not accpet it as a forgone conlution. If you tolerate it you give it moral sanction, how else do you think so few Jews from scandinavia were sent to the death camps? because they did not tolerate it.
To use the status quo or 'realism' as an exuse to do nothing is to give moral sanction to such illegal acts because without opposition they will continue.

I am prepared to acknowledge that it goes on and will go on, regardless of intervention. That even if there is a systematic campaign to stamp it out, violations will always arise because some human beings will disregard orders anyway. Just because it comes from the top doesn't mean it's inviolate. People cross lines.

Who the fuck said anything about forgetting opposition or criticsm? I'm merely pointing out that no matter what kind of safeguards are put in place, we shouldn't be surprised that they occassionally fail. You're the one trying to inject some alternate meaning.

Jesus, you are have the comprehention of a lobotomised rodent..If the proper supervision had been in place it would not have happned, because it was illegal and illegal acts should not happen in a properly supervised, controlled environment. I do not claim that all instances can be avoided but the sytematic, documented and notified by the Red Cross to the US Dept of Defence, abuse of prisoners over months at a time was avoidable..I wait with anticipation of how you can expalain that away.

I win. You just upheld my point.

If all instances cannot be avoided despite safeguards and intervention or systematic oversight, then torture and abuse will always be a part of one group's control over another. It's not a matter of sitting idly by; it's a matter of recognizing that some people do bad things regardless of promised consequences.

[Stuart Mackey]

What the fuck are you talking about? "A controlled environment." The highest people at those prisons only had to sit back and do nothing for others to violate people's rights. You can't create a human environment in which deviation from norms or expectation is impossible.

I see even a simple idea is like water of a ducks back with you.
you do grasp that we are talking about an army here, right? 'controlled environment' where the environment is controlled by procedure and rules and proper oversight.

No, you fucking moron. I am stating what I believe to be fact. That human beings in highly unusual and stressful situations will cross lines. You can try to prevent it, but you'll never be 100% effective.

What you beleive to be fact? that some thing is a given because its always been so? so, how much slavery exists in Britian or the USA?

I am prepared to acknowledge that it goes on and will go on, regardless of intervention. That even if there is a systematic campaign to stamp it out, violations will always arise because some human beings will disregard orders anyway. Just because it comes from the top doesn't mean it's inviolate. People cross lines.

Oh, individuals do..but entire fucking Units!! a MP Brigade? that is what the subject is about. Jesus you are a real fan of a strawman are you not?

Who the fuck said anything about forgetting opposition or criticsm? I'm merely pointing out that no matter what kind of safeguards are put in place, we shouldn't be surprised that they occassionally fail. You're the one trying to inject some alternate meaning.

Alternate meaning? When there is unit wide illegal acts with similsar things happening in different theatres of war, that means one of two things:
1)sytematic break down in millitary disipline
2)or it is a dileberate,sanctioned act
Either way neither is acceptable and writing it off as ineviatable is a lame ass cop out that if perpetuated is nothng but acceptance of two unstifactory options.

I win. You just upheld my point.

If all instances cannot be avoided despite safeguards and intervention or systematic oversight, then torture and abuse will always be a part of one group's control over another. It's not a matter of sitting idly by; it's a matter of recognizing that some people do bad things regardless of promised consequences.

read above. In a controlled environment it is either deliberate or negligent. You writing it off as inevatable is morally reprehnsible, which is what this is about.

[Patrick Degan]

No, you fucking moron. I am stating what I believe to be fact. That human beings in highly unusual and stressful situations will cross lines. You can try to prevent it, but you'll never be 100% effective.

What you beleive to be fact? that some thing is a given because its always been so? so, how much slavery exists in Britian or the USA?

Recall that our dear Comical Axi has often had this confusion regarding the basic concepts of "opinion" and "fact".

It also seems like he's on the verge of invoking the Tiger Defence.

[Axis Kast]

In a controlled environment it is either deliberate or negligent. You writing it off as inevatable is morally reprehnsible, which is what this is about.

Read the fucking question.

"Was the usage of torture foreseeable?" considering that the United States established prisons to house detainees.

The answer is "yes". That torture occured at all should come as no surprise.

And inevitability has nothing to do with morality. If I tell you I'm positive that there will be future wars, that doesn't make me responsible for them, you blithering idiot.

And by the way, just because there are authorities present to provide oversight and enforce orders doesn't mean they will always do so. Having the right people in the right places doesn't always translate to success. The question was whether we expected something like this. My answer was, "Yes." Frankly, that you're trying to spin it into some kind of reflection of savagery on my part is merely indicative that you yourself foam at the mouth to attack and defame other people.

[Darth Wong]

Read the fucking question.

"Was the usage of torture foreseeable?" considering that the United States established prisons to house detainees.

The answer is "yes". That torture occured at all should come as no surprise.

Not when the government continually repeats public statements about how the Geneva Convention does not apply to your enemies and then puts military intelligence in charge of a prison with no oversight from any other organization. However, your assertion that any military prison inevitably involves torture is simply absurd.

[Keevan_Colton]

Read the fucking question.

"Was the usage of torture foreseeable?" considering that the United States established prisons to house detainees.

The answer is "yes". That torture occured at all should come as no surprise.

Not when the government continually repeats public statements about how the Geneva Convention does not apply to your enemies and then puts military intelligence in charge of a prison with no oversight from any other organization. However, your assertion that any military prison inevitably involves torture is simply absurd.

I doubt they've been sic'ing dogs on folks in levenworth afterall...

[Axis Kast]

Not when the government continually repeats public statements about how the Geneva Convention does not apply to your enemies and then puts military intelligence in charge of a prison with no oversight from any other organization. However, your assertion that any military prison inevitably involves torture is simply absurd.

Please, Mike. This is a war. Bad things happen. Terrible things happen. If it came as a surprise to you that cases of torture were uncovered - regardless of the specifics of this particular circumstance -, then you're simply naive.

Any wartime situation in which prisoners are being handled will produce torture. As for Leavenworth, there has been abuse. A prison environment is a nasty place.

Oh, and drop the strawmen, Mike. I said that abuse and torture go hand-in-hand with war.

[Darth Wong]

Please, Mike. This is a war. Bad things happen. Terrible things happen.

Irrelevant to this case, in which it was not just a case of a few bad things happening in isolated spots due to a few individuals acting alone; it was a systematic and organized pattern of abuse which went on for a prolonged period of time and involved a large number of people working together.

If it came as a surprise to you that cases of torture were uncovered - regardless of the specifics of this particular circumstance -, then you're simply naive.

You continue to try and change the subject from organized abuse to scattered incidents of individual abuse.

Any wartime situation in which prisoners are being handled will produce torture. As for Leavenworth, there has been abuse. A prison environment is a nasty place.

See above.

Oh, and drop the strawmen, Mike. I said that abuse and torture go hand-in-hand with war.

I like the way you try to change the subject and then accuse me of "strawmen" for not letting you get away with it.

[Axis Kast]

You're the one who changed the parameters of the argument to focus spedcifically upon Iraq.

The scope of the original question was much wider, including Guantanamo as well.

[jegs2]

From this story:

Sivits told investigators that the abuse would not have happened had higher-ranking members been present. "Our command would have slammed us," he said. "They believe in doing the right thing. If they saw what was going on, there would be hell to pay."

That statement echoes testimony given by one of the initial investigators on the case. During Ambuhl's Article 32 hearing, a session similar to a grand jury proceeding, Tyler Pieron, an Army criminal investigator, said the abuses occurred "after the chain of command had changed shifts and gone home."

Both Sivits and Pieron said that a sergeant first class at one point witnessed an incident and ordered the soldiers to stop. Pieron said he thought the sergeant saw Davis stepping on a detainee.

"They were surprised at how angry he was when he told them to stop," Pieron said.

Sivits said he did not report the abuse to his commanders because Graner told him not to, "and I try to be friends with everyone. I see now where trying to be friends with everyone can cost you."