Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantCasca: You compared my military service to someone taking a ferry trip and claiming to know the ocean. Hence my use of the term “jaunt”. I accept that there are many others out there with greater experiences than my own (and some of them might even be women!). My point in referencing military service was to opine that it is wrong, IN MY OPINION, to be so cavalier on the topics of torture and war when one is either unwilling to put their money where their mouth is or has not gone out in the service of their country. Don’t agitate for war if you’re unwilling to fight.
I did not refer to you as feckless. I do not know your background, so I have not commented upon it. You, on the other hand, seem perfectly willing to pillory or castigate freely those who disagree with you, as well as referring to people as idiots in the course of the discussion.
Being of German descent (on both sides of the family), I have a very high opinion of German efficiency, as well as German ruthlessness. The Germans on my dad’s side were of the friendly East Prussian variety (Konigsberg and Stettin), so I am very familiar with the vaunted Teutonic style of “handling things”, especially opposition.
Again, as to hair splitting: We are clearly not communicating when it comes to “stress techniques”. Waterboarding, and this is personal opinion and not something out of an Army FM, is torture as far as I am concerned.
Rendition to places like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi is torture, again, as far as I am concerned. Those individuals that are sent to Egypt, for instance, are, by and large, never heard from again. The methods used in extracting information are vicious. You and I can quibble over whether or not waterboarding is torture, but the fact remains that waterboarding is the least of the privations that these individuals will suffer at the hands of our titular “allies”.
Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and rendition diminish our stature in the eyes of the world. If we have to stoop to the methods used by Nazis in order to win, then how is that victory? I understand that you are professing an admiration for the German way of doing things, but I am taking a more sanguine view and one with a longer time horizon. The minute we start conflating the US with Nazi Germany, we have lost far more than just the War on Terror. Which, more correctly, should be the War on Terrorism.
Based on personal experience, I don’t find torture to be an effective method of extracting information. One key point that has been missed in this discussion is whether or not the individual in question even has information to give. In the case of the Nazis, they discarded thousands of individuals in their quest for information, the vast number of which had absolutely nothing of value in terms of information. Using this logic, we should indeed keep all the people currently being held at Gitmo, torture them and discard those of no value. Again, it is not an apples to apples comparison between the present conflict (or any counterinsurgency operation) and WWII.
As to my “condenscending” to you: Really? You can heap scorn and derision on me and others on this post, but cry foul at this? Please, Casca, let’s have something of an objective standard here, alright? You are calling people idiots, but call me on the carpet for some point of punctilio?
ParticipantCasca: You compared my military service to someone taking a ferry trip and claiming to know the ocean. Hence my use of the term “jaunt”. I accept that there are many others out there with greater experiences than my own (and some of them might even be women!). My point in referencing military service was to opine that it is wrong, IN MY OPINION, to be so cavalier on the topics of torture and war when one is either unwilling to put their money where their mouth is or has not gone out in the service of their country. Don’t agitate for war if you’re unwilling to fight.
I did not refer to you as feckless. I do not know your background, so I have not commented upon it. You, on the other hand, seem perfectly willing to pillory or castigate freely those who disagree with you, as well as referring to people as idiots in the course of the discussion.
Being of German descent (on both sides of the family), I have a very high opinion of German efficiency, as well as German ruthlessness. The Germans on my dad’s side were of the friendly East Prussian variety (Konigsberg and Stettin), so I am very familiar with the vaunted Teutonic style of “handling things”, especially opposition.
Again, as to hair splitting: We are clearly not communicating when it comes to “stress techniques”. Waterboarding, and this is personal opinion and not something out of an Army FM, is torture as far as I am concerned.
Rendition to places like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi is torture, again, as far as I am concerned. Those individuals that are sent to Egypt, for instance, are, by and large, never heard from again. The methods used in extracting information are vicious. You and I can quibble over whether or not waterboarding is torture, but the fact remains that waterboarding is the least of the privations that these individuals will suffer at the hands of our titular “allies”.
Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and rendition diminish our stature in the eyes of the world. If we have to stoop to the methods used by Nazis in order to win, then how is that victory? I understand that you are professing an admiration for the German way of doing things, but I am taking a more sanguine view and one with a longer time horizon. The minute we start conflating the US with Nazi Germany, we have lost far more than just the War on Terror. Which, more correctly, should be the War on Terrorism.
Based on personal experience, I don’t find torture to be an effective method of extracting information. One key point that has been missed in this discussion is whether or not the individual in question even has information to give. In the case of the Nazis, they discarded thousands of individuals in their quest for information, the vast number of which had absolutely nothing of value in terms of information. Using this logic, we should indeed keep all the people currently being held at Gitmo, torture them and discard those of no value. Again, it is not an apples to apples comparison between the present conflict (or any counterinsurgency operation) and WWII.
As to my “condenscending” to you: Really? You can heap scorn and derision on me and others on this post, but cry foul at this? Please, Casca, let’s have something of an objective standard here, alright? You are calling people idiots, but call me on the carpet for some point of punctilio?
ParticipantShadowfax: I didn’t make the comment to impugn those that hadn’t served, rather I made it to say don’t advocate something you’re unwilling to go and do yourself.
I abhor those people that are willing to rattle the sabers and advocate war, but haven’t served and wouldn’t if called upon to.
It is easy to armchair quarterback and make value judgments when you don’t have skin in the game. IMHO, it lessens the impact of one’s statements, though, largely because there isn’t anything to back what you are saying up. In order to talk the talk, you must have walked the walk.
As to much of what on down in that part of the world back in the day: Yeah, it was gruesome. You’d be amazed at what people are willing to do when you have propagandized them. We did a real good job of that with our forces in the Pacific War against the Japanese.
ParticipantShadowfax: I didn’t make the comment to impugn those that hadn’t served, rather I made it to say don’t advocate something you’re unwilling to go and do yourself.
I abhor those people that are willing to rattle the sabers and advocate war, but haven’t served and wouldn’t if called upon to.
It is easy to armchair quarterback and make value judgments when you don’t have skin in the game. IMHO, it lessens the impact of one’s statements, though, largely because there isn’t anything to back what you are saying up. In order to talk the talk, you must have walked the walk.
As to much of what on down in that part of the world back in the day: Yeah, it was gruesome. You’d be amazed at what people are willing to do when you have propagandized them. We did a real good job of that with our forces in the Pacific War against the Japanese.
ParticipantShadowfax: I didn’t make the comment to impugn those that hadn’t served, rather I made it to say don’t advocate something you’re unwilling to go and do yourself.
I abhor those people that are willing to rattle the sabers and advocate war, but haven’t served and wouldn’t if called upon to.
It is easy to armchair quarterback and make value judgments when you don’t have skin in the game. IMHO, it lessens the impact of one’s statements, though, largely because there isn’t anything to back what you are saying up. In order to talk the talk, you must have walked the walk.
As to much of what on down in that part of the world back in the day: Yeah, it was gruesome. You’d be amazed at what people are willing to do when you have propagandized them. We did a real good job of that with our forces in the Pacific War against the Japanese.
ParticipantShadowfax: I didn’t make the comment to impugn those that hadn’t served, rather I made it to say don’t advocate something you’re unwilling to go and do yourself.
I abhor those people that are willing to rattle the sabers and advocate war, but haven’t served and wouldn’t if called upon to.
It is easy to armchair quarterback and make value judgments when you don’t have skin in the game. IMHO, it lessens the impact of one’s statements, though, largely because there isn’t anything to back what you are saying up. In order to talk the talk, you must have walked the walk.
As to much of what on down in that part of the world back in the day: Yeah, it was gruesome. You’d be amazed at what people are willing to do when you have propagandized them. We did a real good job of that with our forces in the Pacific War against the Japanese.
ParticipantShadowfax: I didn’t make the comment to impugn those that hadn’t served, rather I made it to say don’t advocate something you’re unwilling to go and do yourself.
I abhor those people that are willing to rattle the sabers and advocate war, but haven’t served and wouldn’t if called upon to.
It is easy to armchair quarterback and make value judgments when you don’t have skin in the game. IMHO, it lessens the impact of one’s statements, though, largely because there isn’t anything to back what you are saying up. In order to talk the talk, you must have walked the walk.
As to much of what on down in that part of the world back in the day: Yeah, it was gruesome. You’d be amazed at what people are willing to do when you have propagandized them. We did a real good job of that with our forces in the Pacific War against the Japanese.
ParticipantCasca: You make a couple of excellent points, and I agree that excising certain aspects is in order.
By the way, “Wonton” is a soup. I believe you were looking for “wanton”.
As I mentioned in my posting, yes, there is a good deal of difference between interrogation and torture. Stress techniques, including psyops, do not qualify as torture to me.
I find it somewhat repellent that you use the term “gold standard” when referring to the SD. Whatever respective differences that might exist between us, let me be clear when I say that anything having to do with the Nazi regime is abhorrent to me. That you find something noteworthy in how they and the Gestapo conduct torture is unconscionable, but it’s also your business.
Any violent methods used to extract or extort information or intel is torture in my book. While you might consider wanton brutality against civilians and non-combatants not to be torture is splitting hairs in my opinion. Brutal it might be, but it is also torture in my opinion. Making parents watch while soldiers nail a baby’s head to a wall is torture: The act was designed to force the witnesses to talk and it was done with that explicit understanding. Thus, brutality and torture are not mutually exclusive; in many instances they are one and the same thing.
As to my little “jaunt” through Central America: I was there for three years (1985 – 1988) and during some of the hottest periods of the conflict. It was not a limited tour by any stretch of the imagination, and I have the nightmares to prove it.
I don’t know your background, but I do take issue with those that advocate war and all of it’s terrible effects, but are unwilling to do any of the heavy lifting. Like I said, my abhorrence is based on personal experience, not something derived from my readings in the comfort of home and hearth.
ParticipantCasca: You make a couple of excellent points, and I agree that excising certain aspects is in order.
By the way, “Wonton” is a soup. I believe you were looking for “wanton”.
As I mentioned in my posting, yes, there is a good deal of difference between interrogation and torture. Stress techniques, including psyops, do not qualify as torture to me.
I find it somewhat repellent that you use the term “gold standard” when referring to the SD. Whatever respective differences that might exist between us, let me be clear when I say that anything having to do with the Nazi regime is abhorrent to me. That you find something noteworthy in how they and the Gestapo conduct torture is unconscionable, but it’s also your business.
Any violent methods used to extract or extort information or intel is torture in my book. While you might consider wanton brutality against civilians and non-combatants not to be torture is splitting hairs in my opinion. Brutal it might be, but it is also torture in my opinion. Making parents watch while soldiers nail a baby’s head to a wall is torture: The act was designed to force the witnesses to talk and it was done with that explicit understanding. Thus, brutality and torture are not mutually exclusive; in many instances they are one and the same thing.
As to my little “jaunt” through Central America: I was there for three years (1985 – 1988) and during some of the hottest periods of the conflict. It was not a limited tour by any stretch of the imagination, and I have the nightmares to prove it.
I don’t know your background, but I do take issue with those that advocate war and all of it’s terrible effects, but are unwilling to do any of the heavy lifting. Like I said, my abhorrence is based on personal experience, not something derived from my readings in the comfort of home and hearth.
ParticipantCasca: You make a couple of excellent points, and I agree that excising certain aspects is in order.
By the way, “Wonton” is a soup. I believe you were looking for “wanton”.
As I mentioned in my posting, yes, there is a good deal of difference between interrogation and torture. Stress techniques, including psyops, do not qualify as torture to me.
I find it somewhat repellent that you use the term “gold standard” when referring to the SD. Whatever respective differences that might exist between us, let me be clear when I say that anything having to do with the Nazi regime is abhorrent to me. That you find something noteworthy in how they and the Gestapo conduct torture is unconscionable, but it’s also your business.
Any violent methods used to extract or extort information or intel is torture in my book. While you might consider wanton brutality against civilians and non-combatants not to be torture is splitting hairs in my opinion. Brutal it might be, but it is also torture in my opinion. Making parents watch while soldiers nail a baby’s head to a wall is torture: The act was designed to force the witnesses to talk and it was done with that explicit understanding. Thus, brutality and torture are not mutually exclusive; in many instances they are one and the same thing.
As to my little “jaunt” through Central America: I was there for three years (1985 – 1988) and during some of the hottest periods of the conflict. It was not a limited tour by any stretch of the imagination, and I have the nightmares to prove it.
I don’t know your background, but I do take issue with those that advocate war and all of it’s terrible effects, but are unwilling to do any of the heavy lifting. Like I said, my abhorrence is based on personal experience, not something derived from my readings in the comfort of home and hearth.
ParticipantCasca: You make a couple of excellent points, and I agree that excising certain aspects is in order.
By the way, “Wonton” is a soup. I believe you were looking for “wanton”.
As I mentioned in my posting, yes, there is a good deal of difference between interrogation and torture. Stress techniques, including psyops, do not qualify as torture to me.
I find it somewhat repellent that you use the term “gold standard” when referring to the SD. Whatever respective differences that might exist between us, let me be clear when I say that anything having to do with the Nazi regime is abhorrent to me. That you find something noteworthy in how they and the Gestapo conduct torture is unconscionable, but it’s also your business.
Any violent methods used to extract or extort information or intel is torture in my book. While you might consider wanton brutality against civilians and non-combatants not to be torture is splitting hairs in my opinion. Brutal it might be, but it is also torture in my opinion. Making parents watch while soldiers nail a baby’s head to a wall is torture: The act was designed to force the witnesses to talk and it was done with that explicit understanding. Thus, brutality and torture are not mutually exclusive; in many instances they are one and the same thing.
As to my little “jaunt” through Central America: I was there for three years (1985 – 1988) and during some of the hottest periods of the conflict. It was not a limited tour by any stretch of the imagination, and I have the nightmares to prove it.
I don’t know your background, but I do take issue with those that advocate war and all of it’s terrible effects, but are unwilling to do any of the heavy lifting. Like I said, my abhorrence is based on personal experience, not something derived from my readings in the comfort of home and hearth.
ParticipantCasca: You make a couple of excellent points, and I agree that excising certain aspects is in order.
By the way, “Wonton” is a soup. I believe you were looking for “wanton”.
As I mentioned in my posting, yes, there is a good deal of difference between interrogation and torture. Stress techniques, including psyops, do not qualify as torture to me.
I find it somewhat repellent that you use the term “gold standard” when referring to the SD. Whatever respective differences that might exist between us, let me be clear when I say that anything having to do with the Nazi regime is abhorrent to me. That you find something noteworthy in how they and the Gestapo conduct torture is unconscionable, but it’s also your business.
Any violent methods used to extract or extort information or intel is torture in my book. While you might consider wanton brutality against civilians and non-combatants not to be torture is splitting hairs in my opinion. Brutal it might be, but it is also torture in my opinion. Making parents watch while soldiers nail a baby’s head to a wall is torture: The act was designed to force the witnesses to talk and it was done with that explicit understanding. Thus, brutality and torture are not mutually exclusive; in many instances they are one and the same thing.
As to my little “jaunt” through Central America: I was there for three years (1985 – 1988) and during some of the hottest periods of the conflict. It was not a limited tour by any stretch of the imagination, and I have the nightmares to prove it.
I don’t know your background, but I do take issue with those that advocate war and all of it’s terrible effects, but are unwilling to do any of the heavy lifting. Like I said, my abhorrence is based on personal experience, not something derived from my readings in the comfort of home and hearth.
ParticipantCasca: You make a couple of excellent points, and I agree that excising certain aspects is in order.
By the way, “Wonton” is a soup. I believe you were looking for “wanton”.
As I mentioned in my posting, yes, there is a good deal of difference between interrogation and torture. Stress techniques, including psyops, do not qualify as torture to me.
I find it somewhat repellent that you use the term “gold standard” when referring to the SD. Whatever respective differences that might exist between us, let me be clear when I say that anything having to do with the Nazi regime is abhorrent to me. That you find something noteworthy in how they and the Gestapo conduct torture is unconscionable, but it’s also your business.
Any violent methods used to extract or extort information or intel is torture in my book. While you might consider wanton brutality against civilians and non-combatants not to be torture is splitting hairs in my opinion. Brutal it might be, but it is also torture in my opinion. Making parents watch while soldiers nail a baby’s head to a wall is torture: The act was designed to force the witnesses to talk and it was done with that explicit understanding. Thus, brutality and torture are not mutually exclusive; in many instances they are one and the same thing.
As to my little “jaunt” through Central America: I was there for three years (1985 – 1988) and during some of the hottest periods of the conflict. It was not a limited tour by any stretch of the imagination, and I have the nightmares to prove it.
I don’t know your background, but I do take issue with those that advocate war and all of it’s terrible effects, but are unwilling to do any of the heavy lifting. Like I said, my abhorrence is based on personal experience, not something derived from my readings in the comfort of home and hearth.
ParticipantFrom the Wall Street Journal:
Jury Delivers Split Verdict
In Guantanamo Bay Trial
By JESS BRAVIN
August 6, 2008 12:41 p.m.GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba — A military commission convicted Osama bin Laden’s former driver of supporting terrorism, the first verdict delivered here since President George W. Bush announced plans in November 2001 to try accused foreign terrorists in a separate system of offshore military courts.
The jury of six military officers also acquitted Salim Hamdan of the other charge prosecutors lodged, conspiracy to commit al Qaeda terrorist attacks, rejecting government efforts to paint the former driver as a significant member of Mr. bin Laden’s inner circle.
Associated Press
Salim Hamdan on trial in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
“He was acquitted of the most serious charge, conspiracy, and he’ll never face that charge again,” said Michael Berrigan, the deputy chief defense counsel.Prosecutors weren’t immediately available for comment, but the Pentagon spokesman here, Cmdr. J.D. Gordon, said, “Mr. Hamdan received a full and fair trial. The jury reached their decision based on the law and the facts presented in court.”
Both charges carry a potential life term. The jury will determine punishment after a sentencing hearing, set to begin at 2 p.m. Wednesday and likely to conclude by tomorrow.
The government plans eventually to try 80 Guantanamo prisoners by military commission, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others accused of organizing the Sept. 11 attacks. The system has been fraught with internal problems and legal setbacks in the seven years since Mr. Bush first proposed it and its future under the next president remains unclear. Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama voted against the 2006 measure authorizing the trials; his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, supported it but has said he would like to close the Guantanamo base.
MORE
Associated Press
• Law Blog: Tough Times Ahead for the Prosecution?
• Bin Laden Driver Not Tied to Terror Acts
07/24/08
• Trial of Bin Laden’s Ex-Driver Opens
07/23/08Mr. Hamdan, 37 years old, bowed his head and appeared to weep softly after the verdict was read in the windowless courtroom built inside an old aircraft control building. A slight man wearing a charcoal blazer and the traditional headdress of his native Yemen, Mr. Hamdan has been at the center of a legal storm over due process and presidential powers that repeatedly has vexed the highest levels of all three branches of government.In 2006, the Supreme Court struck down Mr. Bush’s initial effort to try Mr. Hamdan before a military commission that Congress had not approved, and which denied defendants significant rights, such as attending their own trials and appealing to an independent court. Congress responded by authorizing a modified version of the commissions, providing defendants several rights Mr. Bush initially sought to deny, including the possibility of Supreme Court review.
Critics have complained the new system still fell short of fairness. Mr. Hamdan’s attorneys say one example is the charge on which their client was convicted — providing material support for terrorism — which has been a civilian crime for years but they say has not been considered a war crime.
Even if Congress can declare it a war crime, defense attorneys say they will argue on appeal that Mr. Hamdan, who was captured in November 2001, cannot be tried for acts he committed before the law was passed.
“Is material support a war crime,” is the central legal issue remaining, Mr. Berrigan said.
Charles Stimson, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, said the verdict was fair. “This judge provided this defendant a fair trial, despite the few troublesome rules in the Military Commissions Act — such as the rule that allows the government to attempt to introduce statements adduced by coercion,” said Mr. Stimson, now a fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
Matthew Waxman, who preceded Mr. Stimson in the Pentagon detainee affairs job, said that “while this conviction is important,” many doubts remained about the commissions process.
“To be effective in combating terrorism, the trials need to be widely seen as legitimate. In terms of global perceptions, the government is starting with a big legitimacy deficit,” said Mr. Waxman, now a professor at Columbia Law School.
Mr. Hamdan was captured Nov. 24, 2001, at a checkpoint on the road to Kandahar by Afghan militiamen under the command of U.S. special forces, in a car the government said contained two surface to air missiles, although not their firing mechanisms.
Because only U.S.-led coalition forces had planes then in the Afghan skies, the government argued the missiles were evidence of conspiracy to shoot down military aircraft. Mr. Hamdan has denied knowing the missiles were in the car, which he said he had borrowed, but defense lawyers said that in any event, in a war zone it’s no crime to shoot at military targets fielded by one’s enemy.
The defense acknowledged Mr. Hamdan had frequent contact with Mr. bin Laden and his inner circle, and often was privy to their conversations, at least when he drove them around after major terrorist attacks. The chief prosecutor, Col. Lawrence Morris, said the government made no claim that Mr. Hamdan was a major force within the terrorist network.
Rather, the dispute centered on whether what Mr. Hamdan did constituted a war crime. Defense lawyers insisted he was an unsophisticated functionary who declined terrorist training for the steady and relatively safe job of driving Mr. bin Laden, even though it sometimes involved other duties, such as serving as an armed bodyguard at al Qaeda press events.
Prosecutors contended that Mr. Hamdan knew that al Qaeda was a terrorist organization. His continued work for Mr. bin Laden was itself material support and illustrated his agreement with the conspiracy.
The trial featured testimony from the U.S. soldiers present at Mr. Hamdan’s capture, including an intelligence operative who appeared under the code name Sergeant Major A. Several current and former Federal Bureau of Investigation agents who interrogated Mr. Hamdan testified, including Ali Soufan, who has been described as a top counterterrorism investigator. Mr. Soufan relayed how he led Mr. Hamdan to disclose details about the al Qaeda organization, but testified that he had no knowledge that the defendant had planned or participated in any terrorist act.
The prosecution’s case was highlighted by several audio-visual moments. Early on, prosecutors screened video of Mr. Hamdan’s initial Army interrogations after his capture, in which he sat handcuffed in a primitive hut and offered misleading answers regarding his activities in Afghanistan.
Later, the prosecution showed a 26-minute film about the Sept. 11 attacks it had a contractor produce for $20,000. While reminding viewers of the horrific attacks, it did not specifically implicate Mr. Hamdan, and defense lawyers unsuccessfully sought to bar showing of grisly portions, arguing they were prejudicial.
Prosecutors put on 14 witnesses, including two who testified under code names. The defense called eight witnesses, including two who testified in closed session because the subjects were said to be classified.
The trial unfolded under extraordinary secrecy. Because it was held at this remote offshore base, no members of the public could attend. The cost and difficulty of covering the proceedings left few correspondents on the base to witness the trial from start to finish. Officials say no recording has been made of the proceedings, and no transcript will be provided for months, at the earliest. Courtroom sketches had to be approved by a military censor, who often had the sketch artist blur facial details.
-
AuthorPosts
