Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: tonymctones on April 23, 2009, 09:08:27 AM
-
All right ive heard a lot about america having the moral high ground and how "torture" causes us to lose that high ground and by not torturing we regain it.
My question to those who believe this is why is it not enough that we dont target innocent civilians, use mentally retarded individuals as suicide bombers, use children as suicide bombers, actually torture our captives the way they do ours?
I think that there is no question we hold the moral high ground why is it that you believe we dont?
What if anything would justify to you the use of water boarding etc...to obtain information?
-
All right ive heard a lot about america having the moral high ground and how "torture" causes us to lose that high ground and by not torturing we regain it.
My question to those who believe this is why is it not enough that we dont target innocent civilians, use mentally retarded individuals as suicide bombers, use children as suicide bombers, actually torture our captives the way they do ours?
I think that there is no question we hold the moral high ground why is it that you believe we dont?
What if anything would justify to you the use of water boarding etc...to obtain information?
Who cares about water boarding?These idiots cut the heads off the people they capture.We have been taken over by a bunch of limp wristed guys,who care way more for those wanting to kill Americans then they do about the safety of Americans.
-
All right ive heard a lot about america having the moral high ground and how "torture" causes us to lose that high ground and by not torturing we regain it.
My question to those who believe this is why is it not enough that we dont target innocent civilians, use mentally retarded individuals as suicide bombers, use children as suicide bombers, actually torture our captives the way they do ours?
I think that there is no question we hold the moral high ground why is it that you believe we dont?
What if anything would justify to you the use of water boarding etc...to obtain information?
Torture does not work. Historically speaking, all one has to do is look at the Spanish Inquisitions and see how many people would admit that they were indeed a witch with magical powers so the torture would stop.
Also, you should research the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven. This was late 1970s torture where the accused were beaten senseless and admitted to crimes they did not do.
-
Who cares about water boarding?These idiots cut the heads off the people they capture.We have been taken over by a bunch of limp wristed ####,who care way more for those wanting to kill Americans then they do about the safety of Americans.
George Washington was strongly against torture as was Abraham Lincoln.
In fact, Washington would execute any of his soldiers if they were found to be torturing any British.
-
Torture does not work. Historically speaking, all one has to do is look at the Spanish Inquisitions and see how many people would admit that they were indeed a witch with magical powers so the torture would stop.
Also, you should research the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven. This was late 1970s torture where the accused were beaten senseless and admitted to crimes they did not do.
You are a liar and the CIA report directly contradicts your lies.
Waterboarding, which I dont believe is torture, prevented a massive attack on LA and led to the capture of KSM himself who masterminded 9/11..
-
"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
-
You are a liar and the CIA report directly contradicts your lies.
Waterboarding, which I dont believe is torture, prevented a massive attack on LA and led to the capture of KSM himself who masterminded 9/11..
Oh you mean this CIA report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html?wprss=rss_print/asection
Detainee's Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots
Waterboarding, Rough Interrogation of Abu Zubaida Produced False Leads, Officials Say
By Peter Finn and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 29, 2009; Page A01
When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.
The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.
In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.
-
George Washington was strongly against torture as was Abraham Lincoln.
In fact, Washington would execute any of his soldiers if they were found to be torturing any British.
Again,please give me a list of injuries the terrorists suffered by all "the torture" that we abused them with.
-
Again,please give me a list of injuries the terrorists suffered by all "the torture" that we abused them with.
CIA Watchdog Report Says Detainees Died During Interrogations
Written by Jason Leopold
Monday, 20 April 2009 09:47
By Jason Leopold
According to New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer, Helgerson concluded that some detainees were allegedly killed during interrogations.
In an interview with Harper’s magazine last year, Mayer said Helgerson “investigated several alleged homicides involving CIA detainees” and forwarded several of those cases “to the Justice Department for further consideration and potential prosecution.”
CIA Inspector General John Helgerson raised concerns in a 2004 top-secret report his office prepared about the legality of the interrogation techniques agency interrogators used against admitted 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
In the report, Helgerson concluded that the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” program “appeared to constitute cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, as defined by the International Convention Against Torture” and the interrogation of Mohammed “could expose agency officers to legal liability,” according to a Nov. 9, 2005 report published in the New York Times.
Now, thanks to the release last week of four Justice Department “torture” memos Helgerson’s concerns make sense.
In a footnote to a May 30, 2005 memo issued by Steven Bradbury, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003, the same month he was captured. The of times Mohammed was waterboarded was first reported by blogger Marcy Wheeler over the weekend.
Another footnote said that “in some cases the waterboard was used with far greater frequency than initially indicated” and with larger quantities of water than permitted under written guidelines.
Both footnotes directly reference Helgerson’s report and the memo, along with two others issued by Bradbury in May 2005, appears to address specific conclusions Helgerson's report raised questions about the legality of the “enhanced interrogations.”
According to the Times report, Helgerson’s investigation into the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” program, launched in 2003, “expressed skepticism [that] the [torture] treaty does not apply to CIA interrogations because they take place overseas on people who are not citizens of the United States.”
"The officials who described the report said it discussed particular techniques used by the CIA against particular prisoners, including about three dozen terror suspects being held by the agency in secret locations around the world," the New York Times reported.
“They said it referred in particular to the treatment of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed...who has been detained in a secret location by the CIA since he was captured in March 2003. Mr. Mohammed is among those believed to have been subjected to waterboarding, in which a prisoner is strapped to a board and made to believe he is drowning.”
The report has been highly sought after by members of Congress and civil liberties organizations for some time. It is believed contents of the report were shared with Democratic and Republican members of the House and Senate intelligence committees.
In fact, a little known declaration from the Justice Department in January makes that clear. The declaration, made in response to a lawsuit filed against the CIA by the American Civil Liberties Union over the destruction of 92 interrogation videotapes, says “at the conclusion of [Helgerson’s] special review in May 2004, [CIA Office of Inspector General] notified DOJ and other relevant oversight authorities of the review’s findings.”
In June 2004, one month after Helgerson concluded his investigation, then CIA Director George Tenet asked the White House to explicitly sign off on the agency's "enhanced interrogation" program with a memo that authorized specific techniques, such as waterboarding. A similar request was also made by the agency at the start of Helgerson's probe in 2003, according to a report published in the Washington Post last October.
"The Bush administration issued a pair of secret memos to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 that explicitly endorsed the agency's use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding against al-Qaeda suspects -- documents prompted by worries among intelligence officials about a possible backlash if details of the program became public," the Post reported.
"The classified memos, which have not been previously disclosed (and remain classified), were requested by then-CIA Director George J. Tenet more than a year after the start of the secret interrogations, according to four administration and intelligence officials familiar with the documents. Although Justice Department lawyers, beginning in 2002, had signed off on the agency's interrogation methods, senior CIA officials were troubled that White House policymakers had never endorsed the program in writing."
It's unknown whether Helgerson's review lead Tenet to request the memos from the White House.
According to the Post report, "the CIA's anxiety was partly fueled by the lack of explicit presidential authorization for the interrogation program" and "Tenet seemed...interested in protecting his subordinates" from legal liability.
Last week, after the four "torture" memos were released, Attorney General Eric Holder said he told the CIA that the federal government would provide legal representation “to any employee, at no cost to the employee, in any state or federal judicial or administrative proceeding brought against the employee based on such conduct and would take measures to respond to any proceeding initiated against the employee in any international or foreign tribunal, including appointing counsel to act on the employee’s behalf and asserting any available immunities and other defenses in the proceeding itself.”
“To the extent permissible under federal law, the government will also indemnify any employee for any monetary judgment or penalty ultimately imposed against him for such conduct and will provide representation in congressional investigations,” Holder said. "It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department.”
But Helgerson's report, if made public, could change all that.
According to New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer, Helgerson concluded that some detainees were allegedly killed during interrogations.
In an interview with Harper’s magazine last year, Mayer said Helgerson “investigated several alleged homicides involving CIA detainees” and forwarded several of those cases “to the Justice Department for further consideration and potential prosecution.”
“Why have there been no charges filed? It’s a question to which one would expect that Congress and the public would like some answers,” Mayer said. “Sources suggested to me that... it is highly uncomfortable for top Bush Justice officials to prosecute these cases because, inevitably, it means shining a light on what those same officials sanctioned.”
In her book, The Dark Side, Mayer wrote that Helgerson was "looking into at least three deaths of CIA-held prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq."
Helgerson "had serious questions about the agency's mistreatment of dozens more, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," Mayer wrote, adding that there was a belief by some "insiders that [Helgerson's investigation] would end with criminal charges for abusive interrogations."
The ACLU has filed a Freedom of Information act lawsuit to gain access to Helgerson's report. Portions of the report have already been turned over to the organization, but much of it was heavily redacted. If the ACLU prevails, as it did in its litigation over the "torture" memos, and Helgerson's report is released it will no doubt further fuel the debate over the need for a criminal investigation.
According to Mayer, Helgerson’s report is “tens of thousands of pages long and as thick as two Manhattan phone books.”
“It contained information, according to one source, that was simply ‘sickening,’” Mayer wrote. “The behavior it described, another knowledgeable source said, raised concerns not just about the detainees but also about the Americans who had inflicted the abuse, one of whom seemed to have become frighteningly dehumanized. The source said, "You couldn't read the documents without wondering, "Why didn't someone say, 'Stop!'"
According to Mayer, Vice President Dick Cheney stopped Helgerson from fully completing his investigation. That proves, Mayer contends, that as early as 2004 “the Vice President’s office was fully aware that there were allegations of serious wrongdoing in The [interrogation] Program.”
“Helgerson was summoned repeatedly to meet privately with Vice President Cheney” before his investigation was “stopped in its tracks.” Mayer said that Cheney’s interaction with Helgerson was “highly unusual.”
One person who was concerned about the CIA’s interrogation program was Mary O. McCarthy, who alleged CIA officials "lied" to members of Congress during an intelligence briefing when they said the agency did not violate treaties that bar, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees during interrogations, according to a May 14, 2006, front-page story in The Washington Post.
"A CIA employee of two decades, McCarthy became convinced that 'CIA people had lied' in that briefing, as one of her friends said later, not only because the agency had conducted abusive interrogations but also because its policies authorized treatment that she considered cruel, inhumane or degrading," The Washington Post reported.
McCarthy "worried that neither Helgerson nor the agency's Congressional overseers would fully examine what happened or why." Another friend said, "She had the impression that this stuff has been pretty well buried." The Post story reported, "In McCarthy's view and that of many colleagues, friends say, torture was not only wrong but also misguided, because it rarely produced useful results."
In April 2006, ten days before she was due to retire, McCarthy was fired from the CIA for allegedly leaking classified information to the media, a CIA spokeswoman told reporters at the time.
Mayer also suggested that the CIA may have decided to destroy 92 interrogation videotapes, which Helgerson viewed at one of the CIA’s “black site” prisons prior to the drafting his report, after Sen. Jay Rockefeller, began asking questions about the tapes referenced in the report.
“Further rattling the CIA was a request in May 2005 from Senator Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, to see over a hundred documents referred to in the earlier Inspector General's report on detention inside the black prison sites,” Mayer wrote in her book. “Among the items Rockefeller specifically sought was a legal analysis of the CIA's interrogation videotapes.
"Rockefeller wanted to know if the intelligence agency's top lawyer believed that the waterboarding of [alleged al-Qaeda operative Abu] Zubaydah and [alleged 9/11 mastermind] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, as captured on the secret videotapes, was entirely legal. The CIA refused to provide the requested documents to Rockefeller. But the Democratic senator's mention of the videotapes undoubtedly sent a shiver through the Agency, as did a second request the made for these documents to [former CIA Director Porter] Goss in September 2005.”
In October 2007, former CIA Director Michael Hayden ordered an investigation into Helgerson’s office, focusing on internal complaints that the inspector general was on “a crusade against those who have participated in controversial detention program."
-
You take staff writers' accounts over the CIA account directly?
-
Torture does not work. Historically speaking, all one has to do is look at the Spanish Inquisitions and see how many people would admit that they were indeed a witch with magical powers so the torture would stop.
Also, you should research the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven. This was late 1970s torture where the accused were beaten senseless and admitted to crimes they did not do.
I understand that but torture will work if the individual knows information...this doesnt really get to the heart of my question though
All right ive heard a lot about america having the moral high ground and how "torture" causes us to lose that high ground and by not torturing we regain it.
My question to those who believe this is why is it not enough that we dont target innocent civilians, use mentally retarded individuals as suicide bombers, use children as suicide bombers, actually torture our captives the way they do ours?
I think that there is no question we hold the moral high ground why is it that you believe we dont?
Why is it that this makes us lose the moral high ground? do you believe this makes us equivilant to them? obvously we could do much much worse but restrain ourselve even though they show no restraint but by us waterboarding we are as bad as they are?
-
You take staff writers' accounts over the CIA account directly?
Nope.
-
-
-
Its always amusing when you put the most left wing idiots vids to prove your point.When they release the FULL report and its proven that the "torture" actually worked,are you still going to say its wrong.
-
Why is it that this makes us lose the moral high ground? do you believe this makes us equivilant to them? obvously we could do much much worse but restrain ourselve even though they show no restraint but by us waterboarding we are as bad as they are?
whether it works or not is not whats in question here the question is why it causes us to lose the moral high ground?
-
-
whether it works or not is not whats in question here the question is why it causes us to lose the moral high ground?
-
whether it works or not is not whats in question here the question is why it causes us to lose the moral high ground?
Do you find torture to be a moral practice? Do you think it casts the nation in a negative light considering we champion ourselves as the Beacon of Light, the shining city on the hill, A country who holds other nations accountable for human rights abuses. We are supposed to exemplify a higher standard. It makes us difficult to regain our footing as a nation who promotes Liberty and Justice. We even place embargoes and tariffs on nations because of torture. If we tout ourselves as being morally superior we should be expected to carry it out.
Does it lower your opinion of other nations the abuses they commit of any kind?
-
Also, it would do you some good to learn the History of the United States and why the Revolutionary was fought and how it was carried out after the war. The ideals that were set forth.
I notice the lot of you here have no basis or understanding of American History and certainly none of World History.
-
Also, it would do you some good to learn the History of the United States and why the Revolutionary was fought and how it was carried out after the war. The ideals that were set forth.
I notice the lot of you here have no basis or understanding of American History and certainly none of World History.
The "Redcoats" did not have the ability to kill thousands of people in a milisecond.
The Redcoats did not have ambitions to kill millions of people.
The Redcoats did not behead infidels for pleasure.
The Redcoats abided by rules of war.
Your sympathizing with terrorist killers is disgusting. Come to NYC and go down Broadway all the way till the end and see the hole in the ground where 3000 people.
-
Do you find torture to be a moral practice? Do you think it casts the nation in a negative light considering we champion ourselves as the Beacon of Light, the shining city on the hill, A country who holds other nations accountable for human rights abuses. We are supposed to exemplify a higher standard. It makes us difficult to regain our footing as a nation who promotes Liberty and Justice. We even place embargoes and tariffs on nations because of torture. If we tout ourselves as being morally superior we should be expected to carry it out.
Does it lower your opinion of other nations the abuses they commit of any kind?
I dont find it an unmoral practice when performed on an individual who harbors ill will towards us and might know info that could protect our citizens. If they were to do it on everyday individuals just for kicks then sure i would consider that immoral. Do we not still exemplify a higher standard? we dont cut their heads off, we dont target civilians, we dont use mentally disabled ppl or children to attack civilians, we dont intentionally put civilians in harms way. Why is that not enough for you?
Also, it would do you some good to learn the History of the United States and why the Revolutionary was fought and how it was carried out after the war. The ideals that were set forth.
I notice the lot of you here have no basis or understanding of American History and certainly none of World History.
Im very aware of the ideals set forth for us by others in the past but as they say times they are a changing and ideals while great to strive to live by at times are unrealistic wouldnt you agree?
-
The "Redcoats" did not have the ability to kill thousands of people in a milisecond.
The Redcoats did not have ambitions to kill millions of people.
The Redcoats did not behead infidels for pleasure.
The Redcoats abided by rules of war.
Your sympathizing with terrorist killers is disgusting. Come to NYC and go down Broadway all the way till the end and see the hole in the ground where 3000 people.
1. The Redcoats killed hundreds of thousands, sometimes by the thousand in a few minutes. More than any terrorist has done to ANY American.
2. The Redcoats did have the ambition at one time to enslave or kill at will especially as they were colonizing Africa and India. Historians pinpoint well over a million deaths easily due to British colonization in an attempt to expand their colonial empire.
3. The Redcoats tortured Americans fiercely which did include severing heads and raping children as well as the burning of civilian homes. I guess you forgot about the Third Ammendment to the Constitution: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law which was created in part out of the harsh torture the civilians endured.
4. The Redcoats DID NOT abide by rules of engagement.
5. Being against the concept of torture is not sympathizing with terrorism. I doubt anyone could make a case that John Mccain is a terrorist sympathizer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revolutionary War Prisoners of War
OVERALL FACTS:
There were thousands of American prisoners held by the British during the war.
Of all of the prisoners held in captivity, 4 out of 5 men died.
New York City was the main city where prisoners were held.
By the end of 1776, there were over 5,000 prisoners held in New York City. More than half of the prisoners came from the soldiers captured at the battle of Fort Washington and Fort Lee. With a total population of New York City around 25,000, this meant that 1 out of every 5 people in the city were prisoners.
During the war, more military men on the British prison ships than were killed in battle.
A Prisoner Excange Program was used between the British and American forces during the American Revolutionary War.
The premise of the exchange was to be able to exchange a sailor for a sailor, a soldier for a soldier, with the prisoners being of equal rank. Later on in the war, the exchange program was stopped by the British in 1780. The reason being that with the American forces being smaller than the British forces, the British didn't want to let the Americans get back more of their men by using the rate of attrition being that the Americans didn't have nearly as many military personel as the British.
After the major british defeat at the battle of Yorktown in 1781, the British wanted to restart the program due to the severe shortage of soldiers and sailors in the British military. Gen. George Washington realized this, and with the war coming to an end with the Americans seeing that they were going to be victorious, decided to not start the program back.
Prisoners onboard the British prison ships could win their release if they signed an oath to serve as sailors with the British Royal Navy.
In the latter years of the war, the number of enlistments of British sailors were becoming smaller and more difficult to fulfill. To offset the low recruiting numbers, the British government authorized a plan whereas the American prisoners would be allowed to sign an oath to serve in the Royal Navy in exchange for being released from captivity as prisoners of war.
By the end of the war, almost 25% of the sailors serving aboard ships in the British Royal Navy were former American prisoners who signed the oath.
BRITISH PRISON SHIPS:
The number of American prisoners continued to grow with the progression of the war. The british were having trouble with finding enough places to houe these captured Americans. There was only 1 prison building in New York City at this time. The British had already taken over most of the empty buildings in the city for use as prisons, and there still wasn't enough room for the prisoners. Since it would be too expensive to build enough prisons to facilitate the number of prisoners on hand, plus the estimated number of future prisoners, the British had to come up with a solution.
There were about a dozen Royal Navy ships in the New York City area not being used. This was because the ships weren't seaworthy. It was decided to use these ships as prisons for the captured Americans since it was cheaper to build a ship than a prison. The ships had its masts removed and the gunports nailed shut. The ships were put at Wallabaugh Bay, which is near Brooklyn. The Wallabaugh Bay was really nothing more than mud flats because of the shallow water depth not being deep enough for a regular ship to navigate in.
The most infamous British prison ship was the H.M.S. Jersey. It was a decrepit, former hospital navy ship that was dilapitated and in serious need of repair to become seaworthy again. Normally, the ship would have a crew of about 350 sailors. When it became a prison ship, it held over 1,000 prisoners.
During the daytime, the prisoners were allowed above deck to walk around and get some fresh air. At sunset, they were sent back into the holds of the ship and locked up. The only ventilation while below deck was from a few windows with iron bars on them. It was almost completely dark in the holds. The latrines were buckets located with the prisoners. They would normally overflow from being full during the night, with its contents running over into the sleeping areas.
They were given only 1 cup of water once they went below deck. The prisoners had a ration issued to the in the morning. Most of the rations were inedible. They were left over rations from England and very old. The total amount equaled to about 1/2 of a normal British sailor's ration. Hunger and diseases were prevalent among the prisoners. Every prisoner suffered from vitamen deffenciency, typically it would be scurvey.
By 1781, the H.M.S. Jersey held over 1,100 prisoners. Smallpox and yellow fever outbreaks were at an epidemic proportion among the prisoners.
Every few days, some doctors would come aboard the ships and take the extremely sick prisoners off and transfer them to 1 of 3 hospital ships in the bay. The bad part of this is that the sick prisoners rarely left alive from the hospital ships. The prisoners who died on the ships during the night were put in a corner of the ship's hold until morning. The following day, the dead were bundled up, tied together, and hauled up to the top deck. They were then sent to the adjoining shoreline of the bay, where they would be buried. On the shoreline, from the waterline to about 30 yards away was a marshy shore. It was here that the dead would be buried. A group of prisoners would volunteer for a burial detail and go with the dead bodies, under heavy guard, and bury the bodies. On average, 5 to 6 prisoners a day died aboard the H.M.S. Jersey and likewise on the other prison ships.
The ship's guards were notorious for being very brutal. They would try to cheat the prisoners out of anything that they could. It was also known for them to torture the prisoners with the threat of injury and actually injuring or accidentaly killing the prisoners. The prisoners couldn't do anything about it, though. At the closing months of the war, when the british realized that they were going to lose, the treatment of the prisoners by the guards improved dramatically. Anytime a prisoner was caught trying to escape, or captured after escaping, was shot on the spot.
During the Revolutionary War, the management and treatment of prisoners was very different from the standards of modern warfare. Modern standards, as outlined in the Geneva Conventions, expect captives to be held and cared for by their captors. One primary difference in the 18th century, was that care and supplies for captives were expected to be provided by their own army, their government, or private resources.
Throughout the war, there were exchanges of prisoners. These might be made in the field or at higher levels of organization. Usually high ranking officer exchanges would be negotiated for specific named people. There were some exchanges based on numbers for lower ranking people, but these were so limited as to be rare events.
Three other aspects were different than those normally seen in modern warfare. The first is that letters were permitted, and sometimes even encouraged. Prisoners could buy or exchange for food and clothing, including any money sent by their families. The second was the use of "Parole" by both sides. This would allow prisoners some freedom, in exchange for their promise not to resume the war. The last is that prisoners were encouraged to enlist in the army of the other side. Over the course of the war, as much as a quarter of each army had actually seen service on the other side.
The British forces held relatively few places in strength for long periods. American prisoners tended to be accumulated at these sites. New York City was the major site, Philadelphia in 1777 and later Charleston, South Carolina were also important. Facilities at these places were limited, sometime severely. At times the occupying army was actually larger than the total civilian population.
The British solution to this problem was to use obsolete, captured, or damaged ships as prisons. Conditions here were appalling, and as many men died imprisoned as were killed in actual combat. While the Continental Army named a commissary to supply them, the task was almost impossible. Elias Boudinot, as one of these commissaries, was competing with other agents seeking to gather supplies for Gen. George Washington's army at Valley Forge.
Some British and Hessian prisoners were paroled to American farmers. Their labor made up for shortages caused by the number of men serving in the American army. Usually their return was room and board, supplied by the contractor.
-
I dont find it an unmoral practice when performed on an individual who harbors ill will towards us and might know info that could protect our citizens. If they were to do it on everyday individuals just for kicks then sure i would consider that immoral. Do we not still exemplify a higher standard? we dont cut their heads off, we dont target civilians, we dont use mentally disabled ppl or children to attack civilians, we dont intentionally put civilians in harms way. Why is that not enough for you?
Im very aware of the ideals set forth for us by others in the past but as they say times they are a changing and ideals while great to strive to live by at times are unrealistic wouldnt you agree?
It is not enough for me because I am against the entire concept of torture in all instances. As an Atheist, I find it morally wrong. I do understand that Christianity and Islam do permit this type of treatment and I think this gives justification for some to see it as an acceptable practice.
We should not regress in our ideals, ever.
-
The "Redcoats" did not have the ability to kill thousands of people in a milisecond.
The Redcoats did not have ambitions to kill millions of people.
The Redcoats did not behead infidels for pleasure.
The Redcoats abided by rules of war.
Your sympathizing with terrorist killers is disgusting. Come to NYC and go down Broadway all the way till the end and see the hole in the ground where 3000 people.
5. Being against the concept of torture is not sympathizing with terrorism. I doubt anyone could make a case that John Mccain is a terrorist sympathizer.
-
I have no idea about your sources.
whatever they might be, I still think thart pouring water over a terrorists head is a small price to pay for saving lives.
-
I have no idea about your sources.
whatever they might be, I still think thart pouring water over a terrorists head is a small price to pay for saving lives.
What are your thoughts on this:
5. Being against the concept of torture is not sympathizing with terrorism. I doubt anyone could make a case that John Mccain is a terrorist sympathizer.
-
What are your thoughts on this:
5. Being against the concept of torture is not sympathizing with terrorism. I doubt anyone could make a case that John Mccain is a terrorist sympathizer.
He is the last person who can give an unbiased opinion on this matter.
-
He is the last person who can give an unbiased opinion on this matter.
Why?
-
What are your thoughts on this:
5. Being against the concept of torture is not sympathizing with terrorism. I doubt anyone could make a case that John Mccain is a terrorist sympathizer.
That is his opinion. What happened to McCain was not done to KSM.
We treated KSM far better than McCain was treated.
-
This issue is so played out. Pouring water over a known terrorist's head is not what I consider torture. Hooking a car battery up to their nards might be. Or shoving bamboo under their fingernails.
But honestly--I'm losing any sleep over alleged "mistreatment" of terrorists. As has been pointed out already--they're beheading our people, constantly plotting new and innovative ways of killing as many westerners as possible, they don't play by any rules. I have no problem with causing a terrorist a little bit of discomfort if it means saving thousands of American lives.
-
This issue is so played out. Pouring water over a known terrorist's head is not what I consider torture. Hooking a car battery up to their nards might be. Or shoving bamboo under their fingernails.
But honestly--I'm losing any sleep over alleged "mistreatment" of terrorists. As has been pointed out already--they're beheading our people, constantly plotting new and innovative ways of killing as many westerners as possible, they don't play by any rules. I have no problem with causing a terrorist a little bit of discomfort if it means saving thousands of American lives.
I agree.
-
What are your thoughts on this:
5. Being against the concept of torture is not sympathizing with terrorism. I doubt anyone could make a case that John Mccain is a terrorist sympathizer.
You have done some good work in this thread.
America does not torture. It's in our Constitution and in our laws and traditions.
People watch 24 and get all worked up over the hollywood elites portrayl of torture as effective. As you pointed out, it is not a good system for collecting information. That's been proven time and again.
What the torture supporters point out as 'just pouring water over someone's face' is a misdirection.
Beach Bum says waterboarding isn't torture. That's cool. Federal Law would disagree with him but hey, he may also not believe that shooting someone to death in the back of the head isn't murder.
Why waterboard if it produces no viable information?
Why? B/c guys like Beach Bum might think it's the tough thing to do or the cool thing to do or something of the like.
I'm not really sure. They are just sure that it's not torture therefore we should do it...for some reason...they never say why.
I mean we're just waterboarding ragheads, who cares?
-
The CIA report directly reported that they stopped an attack on Los Angeles and got KSM through waterboarding.
Additionally, murder is not the same thing as pouring water over someones' head.
-
The CIA report directly reported that they stopped an attack on Los Angeles and got KSM through waterboarding.
Additionally, murder is not the same thing as pouring water over someones' head.
No the CIA did not report that. ONe guy reported that. These 'plots' were AQ wetdreams that never got out of the fantasy stage.
Of course we could have verified this if the torture video tapes had not been accidentally destroyed by the CIA.
"It is inaccurate ... to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative," Soufan wrote. "Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence." [NYT, April 23, 2009]
As I said before, this guy spilled the beans on stuff we already knew before he was even waterboarded.
-
You have done some good work in this thread.
America does not torture. It's in our Constitution and in our laws and traditions.
People watch 24 and get all worked up over the hollywood elites portrayl of torture as effective. As you pointed out, it is not a good system for collecting information. That's been proven time and again.
What the torture supporters point out as 'just pouring water over someone's face' is a misdirection.
Beach Bum says waterboarding isn't torture. That's cool. Federal Law would disagree with him but hey, he may also not believe that shooting someone to death in the back of the head isn't murder.
Why waterboard if it produces no viable information?
Why? B/c guys like Beach Bum might think it's the tough thing to do or the cool thing to do or something of the like.
I'm not really sure. They are just sure that it's not torture therefore we should do it...for some reason...they never say why.
I mean we're just waterboarding ragheads, who cares?
Whaaat? What are you talking about dude? Where did I ever say "it's the tough thing to do or cool thing to do or something of the like"?
-
Whaaat? What are you talking about dude? Where did I ever say "it's the tough thing to do or cool thing to do or something of the like"?
I'll say it--I fully support pouring water on the faces of terrorists.
Geeze, Decker, Adonis, et al... come on... CIA operatives carry out assassinations and other covert missions all the time which amount to far worse than waterboarding. Cite me the federal law that says it's illegal to pour water on a terrorist's face.
-
Whaaat? What are you talking about dude? Where did I ever say "it's the tough thing to do or cool thing to do or something of the like"?
I'm speculating to the antecedents of you idea that torture is valid for some reason.
It doesn't work as information extraction methodology and it's illegal.
There must be some other reason you tout torture.
-
I'm speculating to the antecedents of you idea that torture is valid for some reason.
It doesn't work as information extraction methodology and it's illegal.
There must be some other reason you tout torture.
Just because you say it does not work does not make it true.
-
I'm speculating to the antecedents of you idea that torture is valid for some reason.
It doesn't work as information extraction methodology and it's illegal.
There must be some other reason you tout torture.
Speculate all you want. Like I've repeatedly said on this board, I do not care one bit if we pour water over the heads of suspected terrorists if it saves American lives. It apparently does. I'm all for it. It's unfortunate you care more about suspected terrorists than American citizens.
-
Why do we need to be morally correct by ending water boarding when fighting people who aren't morally correct?
-
It is not enough for me because I am against the entire concept of torture in all instances. As an Atheist, I find it morally wrong. I do understand that Christianity and Islam do permit this type of treatment and I think this gives justification for some to see it as an acceptable practice.
We should not regress in our ideals, ever.
ok well i know this may seem like a dumb question but what constitutes torture in your mind?
I dont think religion or lack of it has anything to do with this issue, i think its more of a question of ideology or realism like i said earlier ideology is great but in reality there are times when you following them will hurt more then help.
-
ok well i know this may seem like a dumb question but what constitutes torture in your mind?
I dont think religion or lack of it has anything to do with this issue, i think its more of a question of ideology or realism like i said earlier ideology is great but in reality there are times when you following them will hurt more then help.
It doesn't matter what I think torture is. The federal statute lays the definition out. There never was any legitimate controversy about 'what constitutes torture'.
That was bullshit from the beginning. We always knew. It only became an issue when the torturers were exposed and tried to cover their asses.
Typical criminal scum.
-
Speculate all you want. Like I've repeatedly said on this board, I do not care one bit if we pour water over the heads of suspected terrorists if it saves American lives. It apparently does. I'm all for it. It's unfortunate you care more about suspected terrorists than American citizens.
You pad one fraudulent concept with another.
Waterboarding has killed.
Waterboarding has not saved one american life.
Waterboarding is illegal.
Waterboarding is counterproductive to interrogation.
All I have to ask is, why do you think waterboarding is the way to go? The burden is on you. Your the one advocating the crime against humanity...not me.
-
It doesn't matter what I think torture is. The federal statute lays the definition out. There never was any legitimate controversy about 'what constitutes torture'.
That was bullshit from the beginning. We always knew. It only became an issue when the torturers were exposed and tried to cover their asses.
Typical criminal scum.
LOL nice side step, i didnt ask what torture was to you, under the law what is torture youre a lawyer so you probably would have a better chance of finding that?
-
If u honestly think u know the full story here, ur mistaken.
-
LOL nice side step, i didnt ask what torture was to you, under the law what is torture youre a lawyer so you probably would have a better chance of finding that?
What the hell are you talking about? Here's your exact quote:
ok well i know this may seem like a dumb question but what constitutes torture in your mind?
Why do you waste my time?
-
What the hell are you talking about? Here's your exact quote:
Why do you waste my time?
go back and look that was actually a response to ADONIS, why do you waste all of our time?
-
go back and look that was actually a response to ADONIS, why do you waste all of our time?
1. I'm not Adonis
2. You asked me the question directly in print.
What the hell are you trying to say? That you never asked? That your response to Adonis somehow affects your direct question of my opinion of torture?
-
1. I'm not Adonis
2. You asked me the question directly in print.
What the hell are you trying to say? That you never asked? That your response to Adonis somehow affects your direct question of my opinion of torture?
adonis's views stem from his moral viewpoint I.E. what torture is to him?
Your views stem from law I.E. what the law defines torture as? get it ding bat
go back and look bro the original post you quoted me in was a quote meant for adonis not you...
-
adonis's views stem from his moral viewpoint I.E. what torture is to him?
Your views stem from law I.E. what the law defines torture as? get it ding bat
go back and look bro the original post you quoted me in was a quote meant for adonis not you...
Boy I must have had too much coffee. You have my deepest apology.
Now get the hell away from me grrrrrrrrrrrrr
-
Boy I must have had too much coffee. You have my deepest apology.
Now get the hell away from me grrrrrrrrrrrrr
id like an answer what constitues torture under the law, lets say the geneva convention since thats what everyone touts.
-
Keep in mind the Geneva convention doesn't apply.
But here are the highlights.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
Article 13
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.
BEGINNING OF CAPTIVITY
Article 17
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.
Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.
The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand.
Chapter III
PENAL AND DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS
I. General provisions
Article 82
A prisoner of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations and orders in force in the armed forces of the Detaining Power; the Detaining Power shall be justified in taking judicial or disciplinary measures in respect of any offence committed by a prisoner of war against such laws, regulations or orders. However, no proceedings or punishments contrary to the provisions of this Chapter shall be allowed.
If any law, regulation or order of the Detaining Power shall declare acts committed by a prisoner of war to be punishable, whereas the same acts would not be punishable if committed by a member of the forces of the Detaining Power, such acts shall entail disciplinary punishments only.
Article 83
In deciding whether proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by a prisoner of war shall be judicial or disciplinary, the Detaining Power shall ensure that the competent authorities exercise the greatest leniency and adopt, wherever possible, disciplinary rather than judicial measures.
Article 84
A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.
In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defence provided for in Article 105.
Article 85
Prisoners of war prosecuted under the laws of the Detaining Power for acts committed prior to capture shall retain, even if convicted, the benefits of the present Convention.
Article 86
No prisoner of war may be punished more than once for the same act, or on the same charge.
Article 87
Prisoners of war may not be sentenced by the military authorities and courts of the Detaining Power to any penalties except those provided for in respect of members of the armed forces of the said Power who have committed the same acts.
When fixing the penalty, the courts or authorities of the Detaining Power shall take into consideration, to the widest extent possible, the fact that the accused, not being a national of the Detaining Power, is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance, and that he is in its power as the result of circumstances independent of his own will. The said courts or authorities shall be at liberty to reduce the penalty provided for the violation of which the prisoner of war is accused, and shall therefore not be bound to apply the minimum penalty prescribed.
Collective punishment for individual acts, corporal punishments, imprisonment in premises without daylight and, in general, any form of torture or cruelty, are forbidden.
No prisoner of war may be deprived of his rank by the Detaining Power, or prevented from wearing his badges.
Article 88
Officers, non-commissioned officers and men who are prisoners of war undergoing a disciplinary or judicial punishment, shall not be subjected to more severe treatment than that applied in respect of the same punishment to members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power of equivalent rank.
A woman prisoner of war shall not be awarded or sentenced to a punishment more severe, or treated whilst undergoing punishment more severely, than a woman member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power dealt with for a similar offence.
In no case may a woman prisoner of war be awarded or sentenced to a punishment more severe, or treated whilst undergoing punishment more severely, than a male member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power dealt with for a similar offence.
Prisoners of war who have served disciplinary or judicial sentences may not be treated differently from other prisoners of war.
II. Disciplinary sanctions
Article 89
The disciplinary punishments applicable to prisoners of war are the following:
1. A fine which shall not exceed 50 per cent of the advances of pay and working pay which the prisoner of war would otherwise receive under the provisions of Articles 60 and 62 during a period of not more than thirty days.
2. Discontinuance of privileges granted over and above the treatment provided for by the present Convention.
3. Fatigue duties not exceeding two hours daily.
4. Confinement.
The punishment referred to under (3) shall not be applied to officers.
In no case shall disciplinary punishments be inhuman, brutal or dangerous to the health of prisoners of war.
Article 90
The duration of any single punishment shall in no case exceed thirty days. Any period of confinement awaiting the hearing of a disciplinary offence or the award of disciplinary punishment shall be deducted from an award pronounced against a prisoner of war.
The maximum of thirty days provided above may not be exceeded, even if the prisoner of war is answerable for several acts at the same time when he is awarded punishment, whether such acts are related or not.
The period between the pronouncing of an award of disciplinary punishment and its execution shall not exceed one month.
When a prisoner of war is awarded a further disciplinary punishment, a period of at least three days shall elapse between the execution of any two of the punishments, if the duration of one of these is ten days or more.
Article 91
The escape of a prisoner of war shall be deemed to have succeeded when:
1. He has joined the armed forces of the Power on which he depends, or those of an allied Power;
2. He has left the territory under the control of the Detaining Power, or of an ally of the said Power;
3. He has joined a ship flying the flag of the Power on which he depends, or of an allied Power, in the territorial waters of the Detaining Power, the said ship not being under the control of the last-named Power.
Prisoners of war who have made good their escape in the sense of this Article and who are recaptured, shall not be liable to any punishment in respect of their previous escape.
Article 92
A prisoner of war who attempts to escape and is recaptured before having made good his escape in the sense of Article 91 shall be liable only to a disciplinary punishment in respect of this act, even if it is a repeated offence.
A prisoner of war who is recaptured shall be handed over without delay to the competent military authority.
Article 88, fourth paragraph, notwithstanding, prisoners of war punished as a result of an unsuccessful escape may be subjected to special surveillance. Such surveillance must not affect the state of their health, must be undergone in a prisoner of war camp, and must not entail the suppression of any of the safeguards granted them by the present Convention.
Article 93
Escape or attempt to escape, even if it is a repeated offence, shall not be deemed an aggravating circumstance if the prisoner of war is subjected to trial by judicial proceedings in respect of an offence committed during his escape or attempt to escape.
In conformity with the principle stated in Article 83, offences committed by prisoners of war with the sole intention of facilitating their escape and which do not entail any violence against life or limb, such as offences against public property, theft without intention of self-enrichment, the drawing up or use of false papers, the wearing of civilian clothing, shall occasion disciplinary punishment only.
Prisoners of war who aid or abet an escape or an attempt to escape shall be liable on this count to disciplinary punishment only.
Article 94
If an escaped prisoner of war is recaptured, the Power on which he depends shall be notified thereof in the manner defined in Article 122, provided notification of his escape has been made.
Article 95
A prisoner of war accused of an offence against discipline shall not be kept in confinement pending the hearing unless a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power would be so kept if he were accused of a similar offence, or if it is essential in the interests of camp order and discipline.
Any period spent by a prisoner of war in confinement awaiting the disposal of an offence against discipline shall be reduced to an absolute minimum and shall not exceed fourteen days.
The provisions of Articles 97 and 98 of this Chapter shall apply to prisoners of war who are in confinement awaiting the disposal of offences against discipline.
Article 96
Acts which constitute offences against discipline shall be investigated immediately.
Without prejudice to the competence of courts and superior military authorities, disciplinary punishment may be ordered only by an officer having disciplinary powers in his capacity as camp commander, or by a responsible officer who replaces him or to whom he has delegated his disciplinary powers.
In no case may such powers be delegated to a prisoner of war or be exercised by a prisoner of war.
Before any disciplinary award is pronounced, the accused shall be given precise information regarding the offences of which he is accused, and given an opportunity of explaining his conduct and of defending himself. He shall be permitted, in particular, to call witnesses and to have recourse, if necessary, to the services of a qualified interpreter. The decision shall be announced to the accused prisoner of war and to the prisoners' representative.
A record of disciplinary punishments shall be maintained by the camp commander and shall be open to inspection by representatives of the Protecting Power.
Article 97
Prisoners of war shall not in any case be transferred to penitentiary establishments (prisons, penitentiaries, convict prisons, etc.) to undergo disciplinary punishment therein.
All premises in which disciplinary punishments are undergone shall conform to the sanitary requirements set forth in Article 25. A prisoner of war undergoing punishment shall be enabled to keep himself in a state of cleanliness, in conformity with Article 29.
Officers and persons of equivalent status shall not be lodged in the same quarters as non-commissioned officers or men.
Women prisoners of war undergoing disciplinary punishment shall be confined in separate quarters from male prisoners of war and shall be under the immediate supervision of women.
Article 98
A prisoner of war undergoing confinement as a disciplinary punishment, shall continue to enjoy the benefits of the provisions of this Convention except in so far as these are necessarily rendered inapplicable by the mere fact that he is confined. In no case may he be deprived of the benefits of the provisions of Articles 78 and 126.
A prisoner of war awarded disciplinary punishment may not be deprived of the prerogatives attached to his rank.
Prisoners of war awarded disciplinary punishment shall be allowed to exercise and to stay in the open air at least two hours daily.
They shall be allowed, on their request, to be present at the daily medical inspections. They shall receive the attention which their state of health requires and, if necessary, shall be removed to the camp infirmary or to a hospital.
They shall have permission to read and write, likewise to send and receive letters. Parcels and remittances of money, however, may be withheld from them until the completion of the punishment; they shall meanwhile be entrusted to the prisoners' representative, who will hand over to the infirmary the perishable goods contained in such parcels.
-
You pad one fraudulent concept with another.
Waterboarding has killed.
Waterboarding has not saved one american life.
Waterboarding is illegal.
Waterboarding is counterproductive to interrogation.
All I have to ask is, why do you think waterboarding is the way to go? The burden is on you. Your the one advocating the crime against humanity...not me.
There is no burden on me. I'm not advocating anything. I don't have a problem with what we did. The CIA said it prevented a terrorist attack. Good enough for me.
My concern is protecting our people. Yours is ensuring we don't hurt the feelings of suspected terrrorists. The ACLU would be proud.
-
Good info joker. Thanks for posting it.
-
There is no burden on me. I'm not advocating anything. I don't have a problem with what we did. The CIA said it prevented a terrorist attack. Good enough for me.
My concern is protecting our people. Yours is ensuring we don't hurt the feelings of suspected terrrorists. The ACLU would be proud.
As usual my friend, you are a font of mischaracterization, and 'independent' slant.
You save american lives.
I preserve the feelings of terrorists.
Oops, suspected terrorists.
Is there no rightwing...I'm sorry, Independent caricature that you won't play to?
-
As usual my friend, you are a font of mischaracterization, and 'independent' slant.
You save american lives.
I preserve the feelings of terrorists.
Oops, suspected terrorists.
Is there no rightwing...I'm sorry, Independent caricature that you won't play to?
lol. Can't handle your own medicine? :)