quote:

Originally posted by ScotsVisitor:

quote:

Why are you so sure all those held at GITMO (not to mention all those handed over to foreign powers through the process of extraordinatry rendition) were caught "red-handed?" Because those who hold them said so?

Indeed.

Many of them were collared far from the "battlefield" - not even in Afghanistan, based on the say so of third parties, or on "evidence" whose credability is suspect, to say the least.

The Northern Alliance etc. were only too keen to denounce and handover their ancient local tribal enemies for CIA "rewards" - ditch the opposition and get paid for it - a nice little earner for them.

Most of the UK detainees released were interviewed by Special Branch on arrival in Britain and were publicly declared as no threat by the Home Secretary.

One (of the "Tipton Three") was working in a electrical store in the English Midlands when he was meant to have been in Afghanistan.

quote:

At one point, we dropped leaflets over the Afghan/Pakistani border promising thousands for any "terrorist" turned over to us.

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:

quote:

I say, torture them to gain their info, then kill them and let them burn in Hell if it saves one of our troops from being the victim of their business.

Sounds real patriotic and all, but fortunately it is not part of the way Americans do things, well with the exception of those that are currently in charge of the executive branch. That will change soon, and the rule of law will be the order of the day. The yes men will be sent packing and the new administration will set a course to undo what has occurred over the last seven or so years.

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:
Nothing sad about it. The rule of law is what has separated us from the truly evil people. I sleep well at night.

The rule of law is not necessarily a strongpoint. It can be a hindrance. It really has no place when dealing with those who do not respect that rule of law. You are fooling yourself if you think that will save us from bad image or future assaults on our way of life.

quote:

Originally posted by ScotsVisitor:

quote:

Why are you so sure all those held at GITMO (not to mention all those handed over to foreign powers through the process of extraordinatry rendition) were caught "red-handed?" Because those who hold them said so?

Indeed.

Many of them were collared far from the "battlefield" - not even in Afghanistan, based on the say so of third parties, or on "evidence" whose credability is suspect, to say the least.

The Northern Alliance etc. were only too keen to denounce and handover their ancient local tribal enemies for CIA "rewards" - ditch the opposition and get paid for it - a nice little earner for them.

Most of the UK detainees released were interviewed by Special Branch on arrival in Britain and were publicly declared as no threat by the Home Secretary.

One (of the "Tipton Three") was working in a electrical store in the English Midlands when he was meant to have been in Afghanistan.

quote:

The rule of law is not necessarily a strongpoint. It can be a hindrance. It really has no place when dealing with those who do not respect that rule of law. You are fooling yourself if you think that will save us from bad image or future assaults on our way of life.

quote:

Originally posted by rayld2:

So because the enemy is bad we have to become like them. This type of thinking (and action) is a WIN for the terrorist. How does it feel to be doing what the terrorist want and helping destroy what makes America great?

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:

quote:

The rule of law is not necessarily a strongpoint. It can be a hindrance. It really has no place when dealing with those who do not respect that rule of law. You are fooling yourself if you think that will save us from bad image or future assaults on our way of life.

Yes Pete

I would rather be, as you say, a fool with a Constitution then, as you say, a smart guy like you without one.

Just how I was raised I suppose.

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:
Still it is almost over, Gitmo will be closed and life will move on.

quote:

I would rather be, as you say, a fool with a Constitution then, as you say, a smart guy like you without one.

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:
Oh yes our Cuba policy is a failed too. Thanks for reminding me. Oh and I really do know you are the only smart guy on the planet that understands what Gitmo is.

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

I would rather be, as you say, a fool with a Constitution then, as you say, a smart guy like you without one.

Nice to see you finally own up to it.

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

quote:

Originally posted by rayld2:

So because the enemy is bad we have to become like them. This type of thinking (and action) is a WIN for the terrorist. How does it feel to be doing what the terrorist want and helping destroy what makes America great?

If you want to sell out to them, no. If you want to defeat them, it is probably a good idea to think and act like them. I don't know; question for anyone who attended the Naval War College on Strategy and Tactics: did they teach you to accommodate your enemy or to kick the crap out of them?

And, my utopian friend, a dead terrorist is not a WIN for that terrorist. It is his loss. I believe that by your willingness to appease and accommodate, you are doing much more what the terrorists want than I. Back to the campfire Kumbaya session for you, lad.

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

quote:

Originally posted by rayld2:

So because the enemy is bad we have to become like them. This type of thinking (and action) is a WIN for the terrorist. How does it feel to be doing what the terrorist want and helping destroy what makes America great?

If you want to sell out to them, no. If you want to defeat them, it is probably a good idea to think and act like them. I don't know; question for anyone who attended the Naval War College on Strategy and Tactics: did they teach you to accommodate your enemy or to kick the crap out of them?

And, my utopian friend, a dead terrorist is not a WIN for that terrorist. It is his loss. I believe that by your willingness to appease and accommodate, you are doing much more what the terrorists want than I. Back to the campfire Kumbaya session for you, lad.

So because I think you are dangerous to the American way of life I should be able to simply kill you with no trial and no repercussions?

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

quote:

Originally posted by rayld2:

So because the enemy is bad we have to become like them. This type of thinking (and action) is a WIN for the terrorist. How does it feel to be doing what the terrorist want and helping destroy what makes America great?

If you want to sell out to them, no. If you want to defeat them, it is probably a good idea to think and act like them. I don't know; question for anyone who attended the Naval War College on Strategy and Tactics: did they teach you to accommodate your enemy or to kick the crap out of them?

And, my utopian friend, a dead terrorist is not a WIN for that terrorist. It is his loss. I believe that by your willingness to appease and accommodate, you are doing much more what the terrorists want than I. Back to the campfire Kumbaya session for you, lad.

So because I think you are dangerous to the American way of life I should be able to simply kill you with no trial and no repercussions?

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:
That is a good point. Our courts will not allow such evidence. Our civil courts. Our normal civil courts.

That is the courts for everyday citizens conducting business under normal circumstances.

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

I say, torture them to gain their info, then kill them and let them burn in Hell if it saves one of our troops from being the victim of their business.

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:


Our Courts will not admit such evidence because such evidence is NOT evidence. It's not that the evidence was gotten illegally, it's not reliable. Since anyone will confess to anything, how can it be called evidence...

Unfortunately, Jack Bauer is a fictional character...

Look, the history is full of those societies that used torture. Strangely enough those societies are not around any more. Depending on intelligence from torture is really depending on tarot cards or wigi boards. The victim tells you what you want to hear.

Investigations have shown that we lost more by depending on this kind of "intelligence" then we've gained.

We didn't do it in WWII, even though we faced far worse, and far more brutal opponents. And just WHAT did their use of torture gain them?

If you have 300 supposed terrorists in custody, torture will confirm that they're all guilty. Then we can kill them...

Meanwhile the rest of the world, who looked to us for leadership suddenly stops cooperating. They cease to charge or hold people FOR US, because WE have become no differnt than the bad guys.

Torture serves only one purpose - it brings us, and out civilsation down to their level.

The Israeli's adapted a policy of torture and it brought them, ahh, just what did it bring them?

HAMAS? The condemnation of everyone but us?

Great, that's what we need. A new National Motto:

"Let the hate us, as long as they fear us."

Works like a charm.

Dave

quote:

Second of all it is evidence in other countries. Ever hear the story of Billy Hayes? No? He got caught trying to smuggle hash out of Turkey. He suffered the consequences of their laws and their punishment until he was able to escape and come home. Their evidenciary rules would no doubt make you shiver. But that is their rules. Not for us to contend with.

quote:

Originally posted by ScotsVisitor:

quote:

Second of all it is evidence in other countries. Ever hear the story of Billy Hayes? No? He got caught trying to smuggle hash out of Turkey. He suffered the consequences of their laws and their punishment until he was able to escape and come home. Their evidenciary rules would no doubt make you shiver. But that is their rules. Not for us to contend with.

Not sure what relevance that case has in this debate.

However, Hayes was apprehended inflagranti delicto with the drugs on his person and was tried and convicted under Turkish Law.

Caught in possession is an open and closed case under anybody's "evidenciary rules" I would assume ?

He later criticised "Midnight Express" and the blanket negative portrayal of Turks and their country - nor did he kill a prison official in real life to make his escape.

He returned there last year to a conference organised by the Turkish police authorities and publicly apologised for the bad image conveyed at a press conference.

quote:

Originally posted by ScotsVisitor:

Not sure what relevance that case has in this debate.

However, Hayes was apprehended inflagranti delicto with the drugs on his person and was tried and convicted under Turkish Law.

Caught in possession is an open and closed case under anybody's "evidenciary rules" I would assume ?

He later criticised "Midnight Express" and the blanket negative portrayal of Turks and their country - nor did he kill a prison official in real life to make his escape.

He returned there last year to a conference organised by the Turkish police authorities and publicly apologised for the bad image conveyed at a press conference.

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:

First of all, who the hell is "Jack Bauer?" I never heard of him. How does he play into this issue. Did he testify before the Supreme Court?

Second of all it is evidence in other countries. Ever hear the story of Billy Hayes? No? He got caught trying to smuggle hash out of Turkey. He suffered the consequences of their laws and their punishment until he was able to escape and come home. Their evidenciary rules would no doubt make you shiver. But that is their rules. Not for us to contend with.

The point is that the evidence can be admissible if the triers of fact deem it to be so. Our courts have no business making them stand trial in our civil courts when the military tribunal can get it done faster, cheaper and more effectively than our civil courts.

And liberalism is not for me, so don't try to convince me with your "we can't stoop to their level" hand-holding nonsense. Real people - OUR FREAKIN' CITIZENS - lost their lives in 2001. This ain't a game and it certainly ain't a kid's show. So take that touchy-feely compassion crap to Sesame Street and keep it out of the way of our military.

quote:

British regulars and German mercenaries were threatened by their own officers with severe punishment if they showed mercy to a surrendering American soldier. Captured Americans were tortured, starved and cruelly maltreated aboard prison ships.

Washington decided to behave differently. After capturing 1,000 Hessians in the Battle of Trenton, he ordered that enemy prisoners be treated with the same rights for which our young nation was fighting. In an order covering prisoners taken in the Battle of Princeton, Washington wrote: "Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren…. Provide everything necessary for them on the road."
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1217-30.htm
********


“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775
***********


In accordance with this proud American tradition, President Lincoln instituted the first formal code of conduct for the humane treatment of prisoners of war in 1863. Lincoln's order forbade any form of torture or cruelty, and it became the model for the 1929 Geneva Convention. Dwight Eisenhower made a point to guarantee exemplary treatment to German POWs in World War II, and Gen. Douglas McArthur ordered application of the Geneva Convention during the Korean War, even though the U.S. was not yet a signatory. In the Vietnam War, the United States extended the convention's protection to Viet Cong prisoners even though the law did not technically require it.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1217-30.htm

quote:

Edmund Morris, in the second volume of his brilliant biography of Theodore Roosevelt, recounts how a master politician took over the situation. Roosevelt met with his Cabinet and demanded a full briefing on the Philippine situation. Elihu Root, the secretary of war, reported that an officer accused of the water torture had been ordered to stand trial.

Dissatisfied, Roosevelt sent a cable to the commander of the U.S. Army in the Philippines, stating:
“The president desires to know in the fullest and most circumstantial manner all the facts, ... for the very reason that the president intends to back up the Army in the heartiest fashion in every lawful and legitimate method of doing its work; he also intends to see that the most vigorous care is exercised to detect and prevent any cruelty or brutality and that men who are guilty thereof are punished. Great as the provocation has been in dealing with foes who habitually resort to treachery, murder and torture against our men, nothing can justify or will be held to justify the use of torture or inhuman conduct of any kind on the part of the American Army.”

Roosevelt also ordered the court-martial of the American general on the island of Samar, where some of the worst abuses had occurred. He did so “under conditions which will give me the right of review.” The court-martial cleared the general of the charges, found only that he had behaved with excessive zeal and “admonished” him against repetition.

Roosevelt responded by disregarding the verdict of the court-martial and ordering the general’s dismissal from the Army. Morris wrote that Roosevelt’s decision “won universal praise” from Democrats, who congratulated him for acknowledging cruelty in the Philippine campaign, and from Republicans, who said that he had “upheld the national honor.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6647.html

quote:

Originally posted by PeteCDR:
That is not exactly what I said. The usual methods for introducing evidence is the question. While evidenciary rules are nice for a community that is not actively at war with each other, those rules are unreasonable when trying to determine the level of aggressive behavior, culpability, and the determination to do harm to that community by outside invaders. If evidence speaks to the degree of hositility enough to demonstrate that through their history, words and deeds that their aggressive intentions are hostile, that they have the capacity and desire to annihilate us and our way of life, then it should be used. Hearsay evidence, evidence taken as a fruit of what is normally considered the "poisonous tree", and evidence that can be verified on the fly, should not be excluded because of our civil rules of evidence.

These are people who are from a culture different from ours. They speak differently, with different customs and courtesies from ours. For that reason alone, we cannot expect that our rules would be followed by them in their own society. Why should we expect them to?

I don't know what your belief about Michael Fay was, but mine was then and remains now that he broke their laws and was subject to their punishment. The very same people in our citizenry who decried his punishment and insisted that our government become involved and interfere with the administration of their judicial system now oppose our government's intervention in another country when all evidence has borne out the atrocities committed by their leader. Now, you claim that they should be tried by our rules when clearly they did not play by the same rules.

I do not believe in appeasement. I do not believe in accommodating them. I believe that justice needs to be meted out with swift decisiveness and that the word must become on their street that you can't get away with pushing us around.

I might add that, as a Marine, you would damned sure be liable to them for "war crimes" if you were part of any campaign within the theaters of operation. I know that from personal experience when dealing with another aggressive force.

quote:

Originally posted by Killswitch_Engage:
It's semantics really.

We don't torture.

We occasionally abuse, mistreat, and otherwise manhandle terrorists but torture?

Come on.

Not yet anyway.

quote:

My point is that we have defendants who walk away even caught with the goods because of a violation of those "rules of evidence". I just happen to believe that the civil rules of evidence should not apply with regard to those caught gun in hand in active hostility with the United States. Lock 'em up and make 'em pay.

quote:

Originally posted by Killswitch_Engage:
No.

First of all, Abu-Grabass was somewhat of an isolated incident and what took place there was pretty terrible; abuse, mistreatment, neglect, and some other rough stuff you might actually expect during a time of war. The weird stuff (panties on heads) you might not expect and speaks more to the frame of mind of those doing the abuse. But I see no torture.

Now, this is torture...



We did nothing of the sort and I do not believe for one second that guy in black on the box is hooked up to any real live wires. It's a farce. A mock up if you will. A twisted photo-op.