Quote:

---

If it's illegal, file a charge. Get someone to file a charge. Anyone. Bring a case in court, any court. If you can't get an indictment, it's just supposition. convine a Grand Jury. Get a charge before the International Court at the Hague. Prove it in court. Please...Otherwise it's just opinion.

---

Quote:

---

If you have problems with any specific technique in the memo, I'd be glad to discuss that with you.

---

Quote:

---

You would rather string up those you disagree with

---

Quote:

---

SIGNY In fact, I don't know of a single terrorist act thwarted by aggressive detentions and coercive interrogation. (Oh yeah-Bush lied about that too.) What seems to happen is you get a bunch of low-level rebels, some average street thugs, neighbors who were turned in for the reward, a few innocent farmers etc etc who get kncoked around for no particular reason because these people really don't know anything.

FINN I imagine there's a great deal you don't know. Though if it satisfies your anti-Bush cravings you'll convince yourself of just about anything.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, I was referring to Bush's speech about the ten thwarted acts of terrorism, all of which the FBI admitted weren't actual plans to do anything. But since you're the one who proposes torture, maybe it's up to you to show specific instances where it has worked, as opposed to the horrific scenarios that you seem to be obessed with.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
What thread are you reading, because it certainly isn’t this one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
What thread are you reading, because it certainly isn’t this one.

---

The one where you've been consistently saying:
"It's not torture, it's nothing like torture."
Why, which thread have you been reading?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
So, assuming it was an American captured by the police it would be perfectly alright to do exactly the same things to him/her as is being done to the detainees, assuming a similar situation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
So, because there are hard choices, if Torture is chosen we shouldn't question it, huh?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
Oh I see. So if I say that something is not torture, what you think that means is that I think it actually is torture and that I enjoy it? Sounds like a superfluous interpretation to me. Maybe you understood from my posts, only what you wanted to understand.

---

Quote:

---

More or less.

---

Quote:

---

Well, that’s your story and its not a very good one, but if you can set aside your histrionics for a moment, then consider this, if you had reason to believe that a terrorist was going to set off a bomb at a location where many civilians could be killed, as they quite commonly do, (a café, or a school) and you had captured one of the terrorist from that cell, if he refused to talk, what would you do to find out what he knows? If you fail to get the information that you need to stop this bomb, innocent people will die. So, since you’re obviously so righteous and moral, tell me how you would solve this problem.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Why don't you make up some more stuff for me too say, you can really trash my character then. How about insinuate that I want innocent people to die and...
Oh, you did, later on in your post.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
I'd painlessly read his mind with my supa-dupa made-up mind reading ability (well if River can do it), then I'd sprout wings, fly off too the naughty terrorist people and show them the errors of their ways through the medium of dance.
Then we all lived happilly ever after.

---

Quote:

---

SIGNY: But since you're the one who proposes torture, maybe it's up to you to show specific instances where it has worked, as opposed to the horrific scenarios that you seem to be obessed with.

FINN: And actually, you’re the one who brought up the torture, not me. That’s your story.

---

Quote:

---

Generally I don’t think torture does any good. But

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, do you know the definition of "Yes, but...."? The definition of "Yes, but...." is "NO". So

Quote:

---

Generally I don’t think torture does any good. But

---

says that you WOULD torture.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
Assuming that is true, how is that any different from you insinuating that I enjoy torture?

---

Quote:

---

So normal people, at least those responsible enough not to ignore the issue all together, must make a decision between allowing a possible terrorist attack and the death of innocent people to go unfettered or leaning on a detainee who might have information to stop it.

---

Quote:

---

Clearly there are right and wrongs ways of doing this and there are lines that probably shouldn’t be crossed, but as difficult as it may be for some to accept, I do not believe that a detainee getting a full nights sleep is a fair trade for the life of an innocent person. So until you come to work for the DIA or one of the other intelligence agencies in the US or Psychic research pays off big time, some of us will have to make the difficult decision. And it is an ungrateful job, I'm sure, that is not made any easier by the righteous indignation of those who haven't even bothered to consider the issue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
When YOU are reasonable enough to tell me how your scenario relates to THIS issue I will give you you're answer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
None of your posturing and word play with the definition of torture changes the fact that none of these techniques are used on American's if they break or are accused of breaking the law.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
If they're ok and oh-so effective, why not use sleep deprivation against someone accused of kidnapping or murder, for instance?

---

Quote:

---

They are if they are considered unlawful combatants, like many of the detainees.

---

Quote:

---

It has been used in both cases.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
We're talking about the 'torture' of people in internment camps.
Few (if any) of whom are known terrorists, have links to known terrorist organisations and there's nothing to suggest these unknown terrorists have planted any bombs.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
It's a made up scenario, taken to the absolute extreme, and the fact you’re totally unwilling to give an indication of how it relates is very telling.

---

Quote:

---

Generally I don’t think torture does any good. But

---

Quote:

---

You obviously think you know what I think better then I do, so believe whatever you want.

---

Quote:

---

Orignally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
According to you. You’ve read their minds, so you should know. Or do your powers work from such a long distance?

---

Quote:

---

Yes, of course. The question of whether or not interrogation is necessary is completely irrelevant to a discussion about interrogation practices. So you want to frame this discussion with the assumptions that (1) the detainees are all innocent and none of them know anything and (2) the issue of whether interrogation is necessary is completely irrelevant and (3) if it relevant it doesn’t work anyway. So effectively, what you want to do is completely ignore any points that argue against your philosophy on the matter and go straight to everyone agreeing with you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
So you want to frame this discussion with the assumptions:
1) They are all guilty, no question, of everything we want to blame them for.
2) The issue of use techniques that go beyond torture is totally irrelevant because they are always required, in all situations.
3) They always work, no matter what.
So let’s stop arguing the point and blindly agree with you and Bush, since you guys know all and see all, and never (in Bush’s case) have an outside agenda.

---

Quote:

---

Agree with me or Bush all you want, or don’t. All I ask is that you responsibly consider the issue and don’t make stuff up.

---

Quote:

---

Generally I don’t think torture does any good.But

---

Quote:

---

You obviously think you know what I think better then I do, so believe whatever you want.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Since you haven't answered me, and then gone and accused me of using the exact same 'imaginary' making things up, ignoring others tactics you've used all along, no I'm not all that sure of how your scenario fits into the mix actually.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
I’ve always known you to be a very intelligent person, and I think you have a good head on your shoulders. So forgive me for saying so, but I think you might know how it fits, and find it intellectually or emotionally simpler to avoid it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
. . . or they are 'Illegal Combatants' which surely means they deserve a trial, and protection of civil laws. Again, something they do not have.

---

Quote:

---

Unlawful combatants are exempt from right to a trial, except by military tribunal, and once declared unlawful combatants the sentence is often death.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
"Declaring" someone and unlawful combatant doesn't make them so.

---

Quote:

---

The first principle involved here is that humans generally tend to like people who are most similar to them in interests and beliefs. Accordingly, this type of interrogator may profess to have Neo-Nazi beliefs if talking with a Skinhead, or to enjoy bass fishing if interrogating a sport fishing enthusiast. Some interrogators go so far as to wear the same brand clothing as the suspect, if that can be determined in advance. The second principle involved is that once the suspect begins talking about any topic, it is harder for the suspect to stop talking about other topics--including crimes he may have committed. The final principle used at this stage is a combination of the first two. Suspects who like their interrogators and feel compelled to talk because they are already within the throes of conversation find it much harder to lie....
http://www.grayarea.com/police8.htm

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
What I do have a problem with is calling those tactics "interrogation." That implies that you find those tactics legitimate, if perhaps overboard. Maybe that's not what you mean, but that's the impression I get as a reader.

---

Quote:

---

Is your life complete now that you know what I’ve already told you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
If you could cure my kid, that would be a nice start.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
Actually it doesn’t. Unlawful combatants are exempt from right to a trial, except by military tribunal, and once declared unlawful combatants the sentence is often death. And this is a legal distinction set forth in the 1949 Geneva Convention with solid roots going back hundreds, if not thousands of years.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
…
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

---

Quote:

---

War Without End: Indefinite Detentions?
The truth is that whether we try them in civilian courts, courts martial, ad hoc military tribunals, or not at all, the al Qaeda and at least some of the Taliban captives may be too dangerous ever to be released. Assuming that many or most of them will not be subject to the death penalty, that commits the United States to detaining them indefinitely.
The Administration's response to this problem is to deem the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters unlawful combatants who are not entitled to anything better than indefinite detention.
As we have seen, the contention that these fighters are unlawful combatants is based upon a plausible reading of the Geneva Convention. Indeed, it would be difficult to come to any other conclusion when applying the Geneva Convention's four-part test to al Qaeda fighters.
Nevertheless, treating the al Qaeda and Taliban captives as prisoners of war, whether or not they are legally entitled to the status, would be less risky than it may at first appear. So long as al Qaeda and its deadly ideology exists, we cannot say that there has been, in the words of the Geneva Convention, a "cessation of active hostilities," entitling the captives to be released. In that respect, as in others, this is a different type of war indeed. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020123.html

---

Quote:

---

Which proves that no matter how different we are on the outside, on the inside, no one really wants the other guy to fight unfairly.

---

Quote:

---

The Bush administration pledged yesterday to veto legislation banning the torture of prisoners by US troops after an overwhelming and almost unprecedented revolt by loyalist congressmen.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/07/wus207
.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/07/ixworld.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
However, you do have a case that, under the GC, the detainees are ‘Unlawful Combatants’. ‘Unlawful Combatant’ is not a legal distinction set down in the GC. In fact UC’s are not once mentioned within the GC. That’s the problem. It’s a catch all case, written in a very different pre-cold war time.
In essence, no one is protected by the GC except for a few exceptions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
It would have been better to extend protection from the GC to everyone, except certain exceptions. But that’s not the case.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Equally how can America denounce other nations for using Torture if America uses techniques going beyond simple Interrogation?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
If no one is being tortured why prevent anti-torture laws?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Also if there’s no possibility of American servicemen committing ‘War Crimes’ under government orders, what is the point of the American Servicemen's Protection Act? Why prevent American servicemen from being tried for war crimes?
Is America set apart from the International community, above than, better than?
Not privy to the laws the rest of us, and indeed America, hold us too?

---

Quote:

---

By defining minimum criteria for protection under the Geneva Convention, unlawful combatants are indeed set forth.

---

Quote:

---

That is indeed the case. unlawful combatants constitute only about 500 of the several thousand detainees

---

Quote:

---

Because the US does not have a policy of torture.

---

Quote:

---

American servicemen have been tried for war crimes, when they commit a war crime under the law, just like everyone else.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Well I'm not sure if I agree. Unlawful combatant is not mentioned so how can they be defined?
As I said unlawful combatants are a catch all case for anyone the GC doesn't mention. That's not a definition.
It would be a much harsher world if civil law defined what lawful behaviour was rather than what unlawful behaviour was.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Policy, maybe not. But I would still say what goes on in these camps is torture, or at least crossing the line of acceptable 'interrogation', and whether it's policy or a 'few bad apples' it's not being stopped.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Then what's the point of the American Servicemen's Protection Act?

---

Quote:

---

Because the US does not have a policy of torture.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Declaring someone an unlawful combatant does NOT make them so. The status of unlawful combatant is a very questionable one to begin with, but also you'd have to show that they were already themselves in serious violation of the geneva convention.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
In order to not have a policy of torture, we would need to accept the McCain/Graham ammendment in its unmodified form.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
There are only two kinds of combatants. Those protected by the law and those not. The Geneva Conventions spells out those who are protected; those who are not are unlawful combatants. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure that out.

---

Quote:

---

Tell that to the servicemen who are now serving time for their unlawful treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib. Sounds to me like you just want to blanket the US with the word torture, whether it’s true or not.

---

Quote:

---

Possibly to protect them from people like you who want to accuse them of practicing torture simply because you’ve decided that the interrogation wasn’t “simple?” People who have a political axe to grind against the US or its actions in Iraq who want to impose or punish the US for perceived malfeasance or just political disagreement could use this court to attack the US.

---

Quote:

---

But mostly, it’s because I don’t think that Americans believe that our people should be tried under a court that is not sanctioned by a Constitution ratified by the People.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Why do you think civil law sets out what is unlawful rather what is lawful?
It's part of the Innocent until proven guilty stance.
Figure that out, Finn.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Yeah, and the torture, or tough love or whatever you want to call it to make it all warm and cuddly, just stopped all of a sudden.
Sounds like you want to blanket the US with the word 'innocent' and ignore any possible wrong doing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Right Finn, people like me. How cunning of you, from my stance of seeing things being done to the detainees as 'stepping over the line' you have managed to deduce that I am really Onasty'Man Fredon-Hatin Bin-Bastard.
Of course I criticised an aspect of American policy, which proves I'm an evil freedom/America hating Commie-Nazi Terrorist.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Please tell me you see the hypocrisy in your own words.
America expects the entire international community to be bound by international law, save Americans themselves, of course.
So why is it that this court is fine to try everyone, save Americans?
Are they better than the rest of us?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Oh BTW Finn, before that old tired accusation comes back up, criticising some of America's current foreign policies still isn't saying America is Nazi v2.0.
Neither is pointing out America’s faults. Something you seem to be incapable of seeing.

---

Quote:

---

In essence, no one is protected by the GC except for a few exceptions. It would have been better to extend protection from the GC to everyone, except certain exceptions. But that’s not the case.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
Figure what out? That you seem to be confusing civil law with military law and law of war?

---

Quote:

---

Innocent until proven guilty for the detainees but not the US? The suspicious of someone illegally conducting torture is all that is needed to accuse a nation of sponsoring torture? Sounds like politics to me.

---

Quote:

---

If you say so.

---

Quote:

---

Americans are bound by international law they agree to be, just like everyone else in the world. There’s no hypocrisy here. I don’t think this court is fine to try anyone, but the US can only speak for the US. If Britain wants to be bound by this loony court then go ahead, but just because you’ve decided that this court is legitimate doesn’t mean that Americans have to until and if the US ratifies the ICC Statute.

---

Quote:

---

No, but the ability to accuse American servicemen of war crimes based purely on suspicion of perceived supposed crimes might be.

---

Quote:

---

We can’t even decide on a definition of torture,

---

Quote:

---

doesn’t prevent you from accusing the US of illegal sponsoring torture.

---

Quote:

---

What is to stop someone from making the same claim the ICCt?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
So Military law is guilty until proven innocent?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
I see what your saying. We had no right to try the Nazi war criminals, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda both had no rights to try anyone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Yes, because there’s so many cases of the ICCt trying unfounded cases.
Your assuming the only place on Earth that one can get a fair trial is America. This isn’t only untrue but fairly insulting.
Have you ever stopped to think that an international court may also be safer for American service personnel? It's not beyond the realm of possibility that American servicemen wouldn't get a fair trial in an American court, whether they are given an unfair pardon or unfair conviction is entirely irrelevant.

---