Technology1 min ago
Trial in USA
I bow to no one in my utter hatred of the 3 Abraham religions but what is going on in the USA. Torture of suspects, trial by Millitart Court ? I thought we were supposed to be the 'Good Guys'.
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by brionon. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Grey areas are a bast@rd huh?! Things are rarely black and white brionon.
I imagine the 'other side' thinks they're the 'good guys' too and somewhere out there there's one them asking... 'hey, what's with the torturing and killing thing? That's just playing up to their stereotypes'
Anyway... I fail to see how that monkey Bush could ever becalled a good guy.
I imagine the 'other side' thinks they're the 'good guys' too and somewhere out there there's one them asking... 'hey, what's with the torturing and killing thing? That's just playing up to their stereotypes'
Anyway... I fail to see how that monkey Bush could ever becalled a good guy.
You need to take a little closer look at the actual facts of the news report, brionon... The military courts are used since the people on trial are terrorists captured on a battlefield. They are not covered as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. Additionally, the only "torture" under discussion is "waterboarding", where the person being interviewed is placed on his back (held down obviously), a wet towel is placed over his face and water is poured over it. This, apparently, causes a sensation of drowning. Much information from even the most hard core terrorists has been "dissuaded" in this manner, saving countless lives and uncovering plots for death and destruction in the U.S. as well as the U.K.!
So, if a known terroist was captured and was highly suspected of planting a nuclear bomb, dirty bomb or other such weapon in the heart of London and you had 30 minutes to find out where, would you not use waterboarding (or other means)? As already stated, black and white doesn't fit every circumstance.
I fail to see how your hatred of Abrhamic religions has anything to do with this discussion, however...
So, if a known terroist was captured and was highly suspected of planting a nuclear bomb, dirty bomb or other such weapon in the heart of London and you had 30 minutes to find out where, would you not use waterboarding (or other means)? As already stated, black and white doesn't fit every circumstance.
I fail to see how your hatred of Abrhamic religions has anything to do with this discussion, however...
Waterboarding has been part of standard training for US special forces for many years. If they can subject their own men to it and call it training, then they feel they can subject the enemy to it and call it an 'interrogation technique'. One mans interrogation technique is another mans torture.
'Enemy combatant' is a legal term used when the people you are fighting are not uniformed and structured. Seeing as those captured were not uniformed but were not civilians either, the US has decided to try them in military courts, arguing that though they didn't wear a uniform they were military personnel rather than armed civilians.
So the Bush and Co. feel justified in what they are doing and the rest of the world looks on. The people who regarded America as the Great Satan, will see this as confirmation, Americas allies such as Britain and Europe will be disappointed.
It will be a generation before the US recovers from this black mark on its character.
'Enemy combatant' is a legal term used when the people you are fighting are not uniformed and structured. Seeing as those captured were not uniformed but were not civilians either, the US has decided to try them in military courts, arguing that though they didn't wear a uniform they were military personnel rather than armed civilians.
So the Bush and Co. feel justified in what they are doing and the rest of the world looks on. The people who regarded America as the Great Satan, will see this as confirmation, Americas allies such as Britain and Europe will be disappointed.
It will be a generation before the US recovers from this black mark on its character.
So, brionon... back to the question... if the scenario I described actually occurred and you were in charge of finding out where the said bomb was deployed, you wouldn't use the technique? Unique concept.
As it's used, there is no lasting damage to the individual and close friends who are Special Forces indicate, as best they can, that I'd be very surprised at the terrorist operations that have been stymied due to the use of the waterboarding... I suppose we could just ignore the ones that affected the U.K. and protect ourselves.
Sure, jno... let's see... three guys captured after being filmed burying a roadside bomb, all identified as known terrorists, all Al Qaida, not a thread of a uniform or identifcation between them... I suppose we should just give them the benefit of the doubt. Problem is, once judicial precedent has been set, any and all such bad guys have to be accepted as bonafide prisoners of war. Of course, they treat our prisoners with the best of intentions. At least they could have used a sharp knife to cut the heads off of uniformed, identified soldiers lawfully deployed in a war zone...
Not one of our men captured by the terrorists have been returned or even held as prisoners of war, while we assure ourselves and the International Red Cross that all the prisoners in Guantanamo have the correct hallel food, clean clothes, appropriate mats on which to pray, (and don't dare touch their Koran inappropriately)...
I appreciate your answers and can somewhat understand your position, all the time thinking that you guys just don't get it...
As it's used, there is no lasting damage to the individual and close friends who are Special Forces indicate, as best they can, that I'd be very surprised at the terrorist operations that have been stymied due to the use of the waterboarding... I suppose we could just ignore the ones that affected the U.K. and protect ourselves.
Sure, jno... let's see... three guys captured after being filmed burying a roadside bomb, all identified as known terrorists, all Al Qaida, not a thread of a uniform or identifcation between them... I suppose we should just give them the benefit of the doubt. Problem is, once judicial precedent has been set, any and all such bad guys have to be accepted as bonafide prisoners of war. Of course, they treat our prisoners with the best of intentions. At least they could have used a sharp knife to cut the heads off of uniformed, identified soldiers lawfully deployed in a war zone...
Not one of our men captured by the terrorists have been returned or even held as prisoners of war, while we assure ourselves and the International Red Cross that all the prisoners in Guantanamo have the correct hallel food, clean clothes, appropriate mats on which to pray, (and don't dare touch their Koran inappropriately)...
I appreciate your answers and can somewhat understand your position, all the time thinking that you guys just don't get it...
I've seen a demonstration of waterboarding on telly (a few month back).
Personally, I would last no more than a couple of seconds before admitting assassinating JFK, bumping off Diana and being the songwriter behind all of the Cheeky Girls hits.
Of course, I'm no expert (only having tortured my annoying little sister back in the 70s) but surely when a human being is tortured, he will 'fess up to anything???
Personally, I would last no more than a couple of seconds before admitting assassinating JFK, bumping off Diana and being the songwriter behind all of the Cheeky Girls hits.
Of course, I'm no expert (only having tortured my annoying little sister back in the 70s) but surely when a human being is tortured, he will 'fess up to anything???
Part of the problem for the US and its allies has been that under international law, it can only prosecute individuals for terrorism offences where those people are members of an organisation.
This is the sole root of the notion that when terror suspects claim to be doing their deeds on behalf of al Qaeda, they intend to suggest that they're part of a structured terrorist organisation. They don't mean that at all. Originally, Al Qaeda simply meant a methodology, and the US and its allies knew bloody well that was what it was. Since they needed people to belong to an organisation, it became expedient for everyone to be 'members of' rather than 'practicioners of'.
Of course, now that every Mustapha, Achmed and Ali has now heard of al Qaeda as a result of the US and its allies creating a terrifying bogey man, and are aware of the fear the name generates, they all use it.
This is the sole root of the notion that when terror suspects claim to be doing their deeds on behalf of al Qaeda, they intend to suggest that they're part of a structured terrorist organisation. They don't mean that at all. Originally, Al Qaeda simply meant a methodology, and the US and its allies knew bloody well that was what it was. Since they needed people to belong to an organisation, it became expedient for everyone to be 'members of' rather than 'practicioners of'.
Of course, now that every Mustapha, Achmed and Ali has now heard of al Qaeda as a result of the US and its allies creating a terrifying bogey man, and are aware of the fear the name generates, they all use it.
1 to 11 of 11
