<p>New York Times
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/politics/25detain.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/politics/25detain.html</a></p>
<p>Could it get any sleazier?</p>
<p>Weenie,
Notice that there’s no definition of what constitutes “abusive” treatment. Most people would find our Special Forces and Navy SEALs training to be abusive; in fact, such training exists for the express purpose of “breaking” the candidates and finding out who can’t take it. That’s been the rule of thumb for dealing with captured terrorists–if we do it to our own soldiers in training, it isn’t torture. I’m satisfied with that. I also think that making the captured terrorists listen to the same advertising jingles I have to listen to (“Meow Mix,” for example) to be only fair.</p>
<p>navy SEALs can walk away.</p>
<p>Wonder why John McCain doesn’t see it your way…oh yeah, right, he was tortured.</p>
<p>Right. McCain couldn’t walk when he was captured. And what his benificent captors did to him wasn’t in any of our training manuals. I can understand his feelings on prisoner treatment. Doesn’t change anything though, except his possible need to recuse himself from the subject.</p>
<p>The option of torture may be nearly as effective as the actual use. I don’t see it in out interest to completely rule it out under any circumstance.</p>
<p>barrons, Although you typically refuse to justify your posts when asked to, let me point out that one (pathetic) argument typically espoused against torture is that it just plain doesn’t work. Therefore, I suspect the “threat” of it isn’t all that useful either. </p>
<p>Frankly, your post,
is just plain creepy. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is why you can’t compare Navy SEAL training to torture. The idea that McCain should recuse himself is pretty outrageous, and negates your assertion that what happened to him is not analogous to what we could do. Also, what makes you so sure nothing ever goes on which is not in training manuals? Apparently, making Iraqis jump off bridges was a common intimidation tactic, but I’m sure it’s not in any manuals.</p>
<p>Yes, I run my life by whatever the NY Times says. LOL.</p>
<p>Barrons, no one in the article, including the perpetuators, denied making people jump off bridges. The Times is not making up direct quotes.</p>
<p>My comment about the NYT was more general. For them to come out against torture is like Bill Gates saying computers are good.</p>
<p>Just a question. Could any of you chicken hawks coming out FOR torture actually do the torturing yourself? Just darned curious, because I know I COULD NOT and never never want it done in my name. If you back torture, please don’t tell me that you are religious. I am not religious and I can not understand how any caring human being can possibly ever be for torture and then say they are religious. What is wrong with everybody??? Just because “evil” people (Bush’s word, not mine) might do it, can never justify us doing it. Worse, any soldier who does engage in it may well be tortured mentally for the rest of their lives, unless they’re socio paths. Do you really want your sons and daughters mentally tortured for life because of some chicken hawks views? Oh that’s right, most of you wouldn’t send your children anyway. It’s usually someone else’s children. No person with any “humanity” can ever justify torture. If you really think you’re better than “them” than why would you stoop to their levels? (Who ever “them” is at the moment"</p>
<p>If I had good reason to believe someone had direct knowledge of an immediate threat to numerous lives–say we had connected more of the dots prior to 9/11 and I had only a short time to find out when and where exactly it would happen–no problem. Just as I could shoot an armed intruder that was an immediate threat to me and my family.</p>
<p>If you shot an intruder you’d go to jail Torture does not work and you are more likely to get mis information. Oh so helpful if you are in a hurry. You, barrons have been watching too much Jack Bauer on 24. It’s FICTION.</p>
<p>Barrons is espousing the position recently advocated by Alan Dershowitz. I’m not, although it’s an interesting debate. My comment was addressed to the OP, and the reasons that the administration may feel it necessary to exempt its intelligence agencies from such a vague restriction against “abusive” treatment. The word “torture” is thrown around way too cavalierly. I don’t think USMC basic training constitutes torture, although many describe it as “tortuous” in the colloquial sense. Treating captured jihadists like Marine Corps recruits at Parris Island would probably violate Geneva Convention rules if such rules applied to jihadists…but it’s certainly not “torture.” The problem seems to be that the grandstanding Senator McCain needs to be more specific as to the practices he wishes to enjoin.</p>
<p>If you shoot an intruder in your house that you reasonably believe means harm to you or others you will not be charged with anything in virtually every state in the US. It has happended several times around here lately–even sometimes when the threat was questionable the police give the benefit of the doubt to the homeowner.</p>
<p>Never seen 24 or anything like it. I stick to Food and HGTV.</p>
<p>Cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment-R-us. First we soften 'em up in a war. Then we kill a million of 'em slowly, half a million of 'em children, and virtually all of them civilians, by bombing their water treatment plants and keeping simple antibiotics away from the resulting ailments. Then we bomb 'em again (1998). Then we invade, destroying most of what’s left of the infrastructure. Then we pay contractors to fix the electrical grid (they never do), and repair the water systems (hmmm), and rebuild the hospitals (duh). Then we economically conscript some of them into a “military”, and “degrade” many of the rest. </p>
<p>We are all much safer as a result. And the dead people are better off too.</p>
<p>They do love us.</p>
<p>We cannot be world leaders if we lower our standards to this perverted and ineffective behavior. It is wrong, we have signed agreements to treat prisoners with dignity, the constitution was written by people who believed that everyone had inalianable rights. No on torture.</p>
<p>A war that resulted directly from THEIR invasion of an ally. And quit already with the 1000000 or whatever dead. That lies at the feet of their leader who stole the money.</p>
<p>“A war that resulted directly from THEIR invasion of an ally. And quit already with the 1000000 or whatever dead. That lies at the feet of their leader who stole the money.”</p>
<p>It would be nice if you knew your history. Oil for Food came AFTER the murder of the half million children, because of the international outcry.</p>
<p>Of course, half a million children probably doesn’t mean much to you. It doesn’t seem to mean much to anyone here. The killers and their supporters in Rwanda felt exactly the same way. But the Iraqis remember very, very well indeed. Scratch one: Sunni or Shiite, and there is a dead child lurking in the background.</p>
<p>Anyhow:</p>
<p>The War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal statute set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2441, makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national, whether military or civilian, to violate the Geneva Convention by engaging in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment.</p>
<p>The statute applies not only to those who carry out the acts, but also to those who ORDER IT, know about it, or fail to take steps to stop it. The statute applies to everyone, no matter how high and mighty.</p>
<p>18 U.S.C. § 2441 has no statute of limitations, which means that a war crimes complaint can be filed at any time.</p>
<p>
So, what is your point in bringing the Geneva Convention up? The Geneva convention is not a blanket policy protecting all foes, including terrorists. All the War Crimes Act does is makes it US law that in cases where the Geneva Convention applies, our soldiers are accountable for adhereing to it. It says nothing about how we are to act when the Geneva Convention does not apply - hence the current discussion about new laws.</p>