Torture of Suspected Terrorists

[David]

Does the United States government or some group that is under United States government control torture terrorists or suspected terrorists? I'm talking about Guantanamo Bay and other torture facilities and detention camps. I am not asking whether or not the U.S. government "condones" torturing terror suspects, I'm asking whether or not it happens. If so, are there any other known camps or prisons besides Guantanamo Bay that I can research for a speech? I am writing a speech on the ethical treatment of terrorists and what I feel should be done.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

It's very hard to answer it clear cut.

By the letter of the law, the U.S absolutely, and without doubt, does not condone or use torture. However, in reality, thanks to people who go against the law, what is defined as "torture", and who's defined as what all equal out to the unfortunate fact that torture, in recent times, has been used. Furthermore, the U.S does ship people to other Nations that they know WILL torture the person; torture by proxy.

Again, it's a very touch subject, and one that can't easily be answered. I would, however, suggest a few points for you to study; The Abu Ghraib Torture pictures. As you mentioned before, Guantanamo Bay. The controversy over simulated drowning ("water boarding"). Finally, it would be advisable to research not only whether or not they are torturing, but who it is they are supposedly torturing.

[David]

Thank you, good sir. That is very helpful. Have you heard of the 4-Way Test used by the Rotarians? I have to write a paper on ethics based off the 4-Way Test questions. They are :
1. Is it the TRUTH?
2. Is it FAIR to ALL Concerned?
3. Will it Build GOODWILL and Better Friendships?
4. Will it Be BENEFICIAL to All Concerned?

For the first question, I am answering that it is both yes and no based on definition of the term torture as well as the fact that depending on who the source is, torture does and does not occur in secret camps around the world or in the United States. It doesn't look like the way I wrote it here, but it holds the same effect. I will now go in and introduce all the possible reasons that it is both yes and no. Thanks again.

[marzipanbattenburg1]

i think we should kill them!!!

no, seriously, if we just keep them alive they're no use.... we should skin them and burn them and drag them through the streets of arab cities... we should hang them from bridges like they do to our own.

as far as torture, i think we should just kill them when we're done.

[David]

As much as I appreciate your input, it is rather useless to the issue at hand. This is a factual report thus far, not an editorial.

[ABsoldier17]

Guantanamo is not a torture facility! It is a prison facility for terrorists, and so far we have three admitted cases of water boarding (if you consider that torture). Look they get three squares a day, free prayer rugs and korans. Think, if the goverment wanted to send prisoners to be tortured do you actually believe that'd be so stupid as to send them to a well known prison facility??? No! you send them to a hidden facility not on the books run by contractors so no offical government official is involved. Good lord, do you honestly believe that any government would make such a stupid mistake?? No! these people make a living hidding things from the public.....their job is to be smarter than you.
As for abu grab.... my god that scandel wasn't even about torture! it was about unethical treatment of prisoners. Laying a bunch of naked men together does not constitute as torture, why? because they were not bodily injured. After we handed the prison over to the Iraqies, you think the prisoners were treated better? No way in hell.
Just to give you a good piece of information, we send the muslim prisoners to egypt to be interrogated.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 3/15/08 10:15 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote: Guantanamo is not a torture facility! It is a prison facility for terrorists, and so far we have three admitted cases of water boarding (if you consider that torture).

Why wouldn't you consider drowning someone repeatedly torture?

Look they get three squares a day, free prayer rugs and korans. Think, if the goverment wanted to send prisoners to be tortured do you actually believe that'd be so stupid as to send them to a well known prison facility??? No!

Uhhhhh... dude? Abu Ghraib.

you send them to a hidden facility not on the books run by contractors so no offical government official is involved. Good lord, do you honestly believe that any government would make such a stupid mistake?? No!

Uhhhhh... dude? Abu Ghraib.

these people make a living hidding things from the public.....their job is to be smarter than you.

Well then, it seems they are stupider then the vast majority of the media that broke the story.

As for abu grab.... my god that scandel wasn't even about torture! it was about unethical treatment of prisoners.

Yes, torture is quite unethical.

Laying a bunch of naked men together does not constitute as torture, why? because they were not bodily injured.

Quote unquote.

"The New York Times, in a report on January 12, 2005,[11] reported testimony suggesting that the following events had taken place at Abu Ghraib:

* Urinating on detainees
* Jumping on detainee's leg (a limb already wounded by gunfire) with such force that it could not thereafter heal properly
* Continuing by pounding detainee's wounded leg with collapsible metal baton
* Pouring phosphoric acid on detainees
* Sodomization of detainees with a baton
* Tying ropes to the detainees' legs or penises and dragging them across the floor.

Sergeant Samuel Provance from Alpha Company 302nd Military Intelligence Battalion, in interviews with several news agencies, reported the sexual abuse of a 16-year-old girl by two interrogators, as well as a 16-year-old son of an Iraqi general, who was driven through the cold night air on the open back of a truck after he had been showered and besmeared with mud in order to get his father to talk."

"In her video diary, a prison guard said that prisoners were shot for minor misbehavior, and claimed to have had venomous snakes bite prisoners, sometimes resulting in their deaths. By her own admission, that guard was "in trouble" for having thrown rocks at the detainees.[14] Hashem Muhsen, one of the naked men in the human pyramid photo, said they were also made to crawl around the floor naked and that U.S. soldiers rode them like donkeys. After being released in January 2004, Muhsen became an Iraqi police officer.[citation needed]

It was discovered that one prisoner, Manadel al-Jamadi, died as a result of abuse, a death that was ruled a homicide by the military. One detainee has also made charges of rape under supervision of the soldiers."

"They stressed him out so bad that the man passed away. The next day the medics came in and put his body on a stretcher, placed a fake I.V. in his arm [to suggest he died under medical care] and took him away. This OGA (other governmental agency) [prisoner] was never processed and therefore never had a number."

"Hersh has made other claims about the abuses at Abu Ghraib. At the July 2004 conference of the ACLU, he stated that there are tapes of American soldiers sodomizing Iraqi boys"

"According to BBC World News, the photographs were probably taken around the same time as the previously released photographs, and include some of the same prisoners and convicted soldiers from the earlier images. These newly-released photographs depict prisoners crawling on the floor naked, being forced to perform sexual acts, and being covered in feces. Some images also show homicide and corpses, some shot in the head and some with slit throats. BBC World News stated that one of the prisoners, who was reportedly mentally unstable, was considered by prison guards as a 'pet' for torture."

"On October 29, 2007, the memoir of a soldier stationed in Abu Ghraib Iraq during 2005/2006 was published. Torture Central chronicled many events previously unreported in the news media, including torture that continued at Abu Ghraib over a year after the abuse photos were published."

After we handed the prison over to the Iraqies, you think the prisoners were treated better? No way in hell.

Actually, they would be a LOT better.

According to Marine Lt. Col. Bill Cowan, what we do in Abu is what Sadam Hussein did at Abu. These prisoners (of whom the commander of Abu Ghraib estimated 90% where innocent) where Under the U.S facing what they would be facing from Hussein; and considering the modern Iraqi government is a LOT better then Husseins, then yes, they would be treated quite a bit better.

Just to give you a good piece of information, we send the muslim prisoners to egypt to be interrogated.

We send them to many different places, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo amoungst them.

[Lagerkapo]

Oh yes we do. Do you know what a ghetto blaster is? Basically a large sound projection system out of which they play music, the same song or songs over and over (the Barney theme song, for instance), at someone until they go insane, crack or even make up information in order to gain reprise. You put someone in a steel shipping crate, blindfolded and tied down with a strobe light going, then turn on the blaster and you've got the most popular form of turture in use by the US.

And that's mainstream. You KNOW they're doing much more fucked up shit that nobody knows about.

There's a book called "The Men who Stare at Goats" out, and it's largely about the use of supernatural mental powers by the military, but it's got a good section on the methods of non-lethal psychological warfare used by the military. I forget the author, but it'd be a good read for your assignment. There's info about how we use subliminal messaging in these methods to calm or disrupt peoples' psyches.

In my opinion it doesn't have to leave a mark to be torture.

[fahrenheit]

This should be included in your research. Bush recently vetoed a bill that would ban CIA from "waterboarding" terrorists. His reason is explained in the link.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 3/16/08 01:36 AM, Lagerkapo wrote: Oh yes we do. Do you know what a ghetto blaster is? Basically a large sound projection system out of which they play music, the same song or songs over and over (the Barney theme song, for instance), at someone until they go insane, crack or even make up information in order to gain reprise. You put someone in a steel shipping crate, blindfolded and tied down with a strobe light going, then turn on the blaster and you've got the most popular form of turture in use by the US.

That's not torture; it's a standard military practice.

If your camped out outside a heavily fortified area, waiting for them to crack and surrender, it's thought that by blasting some heavy music (E.G, Rock) at them 24/7, it will crack their spirits.

I mean, if you haven't been to sleep in 2 days because Dethklok has been blasting insanely loudly, you lose some of your edge.

[Lagerkapo]

At 3/16/08 01:58 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: That's not torture; it's a standard military practice.

If your camped out outside a heavily fortified area, waiting for them to crack and surrender, it's thought that by blasting some heavy music (E.G, Rock) at them 24/7, it will crack their spirits.

I mean, if you haven't been to sleep in 2 days because Dethklok has been blasting insanely loudly, you lose some of your edge.

But there's a difference between doing it to enemies who you're fishing out and helpless captives. Shooting an armed enemy is war, shooting a captive is brutality. Apply the same standard if you apply it at all.

[Bigbubba111]

i think terrorists should be tortured shoot um in a limb of there body every hour youll get the info you want

[ABsoldier17]

At 3/16/08 12:19 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 3/15/08 10:15 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote: Guantanamo is not a torture facility! It is a prison facility for terrorists, and so far we have three admitted cases of water boarding (if you consider that torture).

Why wouldn't you consider drowning someone repeatedly torture?

Water boarding is not drowning, it simulates someone drowning. The cloth is a control, when you pour the water on the cloth it keeps the water back. This allows only a small amount of water to drizzle down the back of someone's throat. Now human beings are hardwired so when we feel this sensation, and can't breathe, we freak. It's because of this people break very quickly. They are let back in their cell, and recover in 5 minutes with no injury sustained. It's more mental, you think you are going to drown. This works espicially well on terrorists who probably never learned to swim. Terrorists who don't abide by the Geneva Convention.

Look they get three squares a day, free prayer rugs and korans. Think, if the goverment wanted to send prisoners to be tortured do you actually believe that'd be so stupid as to send them to a well known prison facility??? No!

Uhhhh... dude? Abu Ghraib

Was a battlefield prison which wasn't staffed very well. If I remember correctly they did what they did because they could. We turned it over to the Iraqies, conditions got worse.

these people make a living hidding things from the public.....their job is to be smarter than you.

Well then, it seems they are stupider then the vast majority of the media that broke the story.

The media didn't get anything. No one proved Guantanamo was a torture facility. And those faciclities still not on the books haven't been found.

[KeithHybrid]

At 3/15/08 09:36 PM, David wrote: 1. Is it the TRUTH?

Chances are, no. The torturee may just tell the torturer(s) what they want to hear, just so the torture can stop. I know that's what I'd do if I was in that situation.

2. Is it FAIR to ALL Concerned?

Nope. Nobody wants to be tortured (unless they're into S&M, but that's beside the point).

3. Will it Build GOODWILL and Better Friendships?

The answer to this should be plainly, painfully obvious.

4. Will it Be BENEFICIAL to All Concerned?

Nope. The tortured will have emotional (and possible physical) scars that will remain with him for life, and everyone will hate the US for using underhanded tactics when we claim to have the moral high ground (aka, hypocricy).

[SmilezRoyale]

At 3/16/08 01:58 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

That's not torture; it's a standard military practice.

Liar, if it causes psychological damage then it's torture. There is only one sound way to get information from anyone is to ask them politely, and if they refuse, respect their right to privacy and let them go. Also, if they are suspected terrorists, give the terrorists money and encouragement to bomb the UN building first before they bomb anything else in New York.

[morefngdbs]

At 3/16/08 01:36 AM, Lagerkapo wrote: You put someone in a steel shipping crate, blindfolded and tied down with a strobe light going, then turn on the blaster and you've got the most popular form of turture in use by the US.

;
Why would you have a strobe light going... if the subject has a blindfold on ?

Would that be about as useful as playing loud music , but giving the subject ear plugs !

If you really want to torture these guy's make them hang out with say Paris Hilton , that should be enough to get them to confess to anything.

[David]

Thanks everyone. Now I can go get this thing written.

[KeithHybrid]

I mean, if you haven't been to sleep in 2 days because Dethklok has been blasting insanely loudly, you lose some of your edge.

How about we try that on you? We'll see how long it takes until you tell us what we want to hear, to hell with how truthful it is!

[Ravariel]

Torture doesn't work. It does not produce reliable intel. So why use it at all?

[kahncccp]

Yes, it happens. You know this country is a state sponsor of terrorism, right?

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 3/16/08 02:30 AM, Lagerkapo wrote:

But there's a difference between doing it to enemies who you're fishing out and helpless captives. Shooting an armed enemy is war, shooting a captive is brutality. Apply the same standard if you apply it at all.

But if they aren't blasting the music loud enough to cause physical pain (and therefor, likely, permenant hearing damage), but loud enough to prevent sleep... then who really cares? It's brutal, for sure, but a completely acceptable form of interegation.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 3/16/08 08:59 AM, ABsoldier17 wrote:
Water boarding is not drowning, it simulates someone drowning. The cloth is a control, when you pour the water on the cloth it keeps the water back. This allows only a small amount of water to drizzle down the back of someone's throat.

Research it more. It's drowning. They do not die (hence me saying "repeatedly", obviously meaning the first one couldn't die), but feel EVERY PHYSICAL SENSE of drowning in water. It's torture.

Now human beings are hardwired so when we feel this sensation, and can't breathe, we freak. It's because of this people break very quickly. They are let back in their cell, and recover in 5 minutes with no injury sustained. It's more mental, you think you are going to drown.

And? If I found something that could simulate the excruciating pain of being cooked in an oven, yet without burning you, it would still be torture. Not to mention the fact that your wrong.

"Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[4] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.[5]"

This works espicially well on terrorists who probably never learned to swim. Terrorists who don't abide by the Geneva Convention.

Wait, the same "terrorists" whom the commander of Abu Ghraib admitted where most likely innocent 90% of the time, or the same ones at Guantanamo Bay who AREN'T terrorists because they have yet to go to trial?

Was a battlefield prison which wasn't staffed very well. If I remember correctly they did what they did because they could. We turned it over to the Iraqies, conditions got worse.

What are you talking about? We TOOK IT from Saddam Hussein's "Iraqi's" and did the exact same shit he had done; torture and murder. We handed it over to the new Iraqi regime AFTER WE CLEARED IT OF PRISONERS. How you can tell me an EMPTY PRISON was in worse conditions then one full of torture is beyond me.

The media didn't get anything. No one proved Guantanamo was a torture facility. And those faciclities still not on the books haven't been found.

Jesus Christ almighty, we where talking about Abu Ghraib. You made the immensely stupid point of saying "if we WHERE going to torture, we'd do this and this and this". We DID torture, and we didn't do it the way you said. Also, if the military WAS so smart, the worlds media wouldn't be able to report on such torture.

You're in the position right now, basically, of having said something equivical to "Look, if there WAS going to be a terrorist attack on U.S Soil on 9/11, it would have been Osama Bin Laden. He would have taken some bombs, tied them to the golden gate bridge, caused a car crash to halt traffic, and blown the bridge".

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 3/16/08 11:02 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

Also, if they are suspected terrorists, give the terrorists money and encouragement to bomb the UN building first before they bomb anything else in New York.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

The Fox News building is RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET from the U.N building, it wouldn't even cost us a penny more in cab fare...

[SmilezRoyale]

At 3/16/08 06:29 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 3/16/08 11:02 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

Also, if they are suspected terrorists, give the terrorists money and encouragement to bomb the UN building first before they bomb anything else in New York.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Since fox news propaganda helps fuel the initiative of the terrorists, where as the UN building is a sanctuary of peace and international cooperation, i think bombing the UN building would be better for the terrorist's interests,

And ours.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 3/16/08 07:38 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

i think bombing the UN building would be better for the terrorist's interests,

Even foreign terrorists, whom have never set foot in the U.S, are so appalled by the blatant dishonesty and factual perversion put forth by the FNC that they would be honored to bomb it.

[JoS]

LOL.

Apaprently music is used as torture, and the artist of the song in question is not happy about it. People are also wondering if the US owes royalties to the artists of te songs they use to torture people ofr playing their song.

[evil-clown-12]

At 3/15/08 09:42 PM, marzipanbattenburg1 wrote: i think we should kill them!!!

no, seriously, if we just keep them alive they're no use.... we should skin them and burn them and drag them through the streets of arab cities... we should hang them from bridges like they do to our own.

as far as torture, i think we should just kill them when we're done.

Aaaannd, from now I will disregard anything you have to say on politics.

[Gunter45]

Torture is only condoned when Jack Bauer is concerned. I think that was written into the Constitution somewhere.

Of course torture happens. It's not relegated to the military either. It is a well known fact that, unless carefully monitored, police will torture suspects to force them into signing a confession. If people in uniform will torture someone just to get another arrest on their record, what will they do in the name of protecting national security?

The fact of the matter is that, while the government does not condone torture, a lack of oversight is just as good as a green light. The only difference is that by not paying attention, the government can put the blame on the individual.

It doesn't matter where you are, it can become a torture facility when the cameras go off. That's human nature.

[Memorize]

JoS, you silly.

Anywho. Define torture. Is it:

-Playing loud music
-Putting people in cold rooms
-Forcing people to stand for a long time
-Grabbing people by the collar during interrogations

Heh, that would be "abuse", not torture. Waterboarding is murky. But those who do physical torture are typically dealt with and punished.

[callofdutyfreak]

of corse it happens. What kind of question is that?