What happens to detainees?

[GostHacked]

This is why I thank the Lord (and I'm not even religious) that the left is not in charge of the war on terror. They are on the side of the enemy; no ifs and or buts about it.

And this is the result of the right being in power:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ + 2318 American soldiers dead and 16653 wounded. And how about that "free" Iraq. Care to walk down a street in Baghdad?

Not without alot of armour on my person and on my vehicle. And a big gun.

[Montgomery Burns]

Um, your article offers no proof. Do you think that ppl aren't onto your "drop a link and hope no one reads more than the headline" charade?

I think Black Dog has managed to catch you on that same thing on more that one occasion. Watch out Monty, read your own posts

I think you are wrong. I read the links. Not just the biased headlines like many do on this forum. Look at Gerryhatrick dropping a link that had nothing to do with his claim. That is a common tactic by the left and we are on to it.

[Montgomery Burns]

This is why I thank the Lord (and I'm not even religious) that the left is not in charge of the war on terror. They are on the side of the enemy; no ifs and or buts about it.

And this is the result of the right being in power:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ + 2318 American soldiers dead and 16653 wounded. And how about that "free" Iraq. Care to walk down a street in Baghdad?

This is what the left wanted to continue: 300 mass graves filled with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis

As for walking down a street in Baghdad...why not? The streets are bustling with activity and the traffic cops are wearing shirts with neckties; no bulletproof vests. Drop the CBC and read some Iraqi blogs.

[betsy]

All prisoners captured by Canadian troops are processed through the chain of command, they are transported to the rear and handed over to the US authorities, As the US is in command in Afgan. they also have the facilities and personal to determine what each prisoner is guilty of.

Well then, we have a problem at the moment.

Harper or his MOD need to step up and make a public comment about the policy.

Why does it have to be a public comment?

[Montgomery Burns]

Army Guy:

The genva convention is very clear about the use of torture in regards to POW's and detainees

But the Geneva Convention do not identify terrorists as legal combatants. While the third Geneva Convention's definitions of prisoners of war are broad, it clearly doesn't include terrorists.

[GostHacked]

Um, your article offers no proof. Do you think that ppl aren't onto your "drop a link and hope no one reads more than the headline" charade?

I think Black Dog has managed to catch you on that same thing on more that one occasion. Watch out Monty, read your own posts

I think you are wrong. I read the links. Not just the biased headlines like many do on this forum. Look at Gerryhatrick dropping a link that had nothing to do with his claim. That is a common tactic by the left and we are on to it.

Yeah I think ONLY the left resorts to such childish antics. Anyways, I am glad you are reading all the articles that are linked, and I am glad you are pointing out certain things. I will be more careful in the future and provide you more quality links.

That article on Uzbekistan should have had another link to back it up, I did not post that right at all. I take the blame for that, something those on the right rarely do, aka 'taking responsibility for their actions'.

I am glad you brought this to my attention.

[newbie]

As for walking down a street in Baghdad...why not? The streets are bustling with activity and the traffic cops are wearing shirts with neckties; no bulletproof vests. Drop the CBC and read some Iraqi blogs.

Thanks for the tip. Here's a couple for ya:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/

Enjoy!

[JerrySeinfeld]

I have no sympathy for "soldiers" who sneak around and don't wear uniforms.

[gerryhatrick]

Army Guy:

The genva convention is very clear about the use of torture in regards to POW's and detainees

But the Geneva Convention do not identify terrorists as legal combatants. While the third Geneva Convention's definitions of prisoners of war are broad, it clearly doesn't include terrorists.

And clearly the majority of people being swept up are not "terrorists".

That is admitted by by the CIA itself.

It's friggin useless to torture people even if they ARE terrorists because if they actually know anything they'll give you bad information anyway. That will make the torture stop and send a few Humvees out on a wild goose chase, right? But even if it wasn't so useless, the fact that soldiers are deciding who will or won't get abused based upon unknown factors means innocents will be abused.

America has destroyed a part of itself with these acts. And for what? Nothing. No claims of usefull intelligence out of this abuse/softening/torture/whatever have ever been made public.

[Hicksey]

As fun as it is going 'round and 'round in your illogical circle of neo-con claims, I'll tell you this only once more.

A person being tortured will tell the torturer anything to make it stop. This idea you have that the truth will magically come out and lives will be saved is stunningly naive.

There's one thing everyone is forgetting. The soldiers we talk about were plain old human beings long before they were soldiers. If torture doesn't work, then why would they continue to use it as a tool to gain intelligence? Are we to believe that all of these human beings are sadistic and just enjoy torturing other human beings for the sheer pleasure of it?

[betsy]

GerryHatrick, read this.

"The Abu Ghraib story began, in a sense, just weeks after the September 11, 2001, attacks, with the American bombing of Afghanistan. Almost from the start, the Administration’s search for Al Qaeda members in the war zone, and its worldwide search for terrorists, came up against major command-and-control problems. For example, combat forces that had Al Qaeda targets in sight had to obtain legal clearance before firing on them. On October 7th, the night the bombing began, an unmanned Predator aircraft tracked an automobile convoy that, American intelligence believed, contained Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban leader. A lawyer on duty at the United States Central Command headquarters, in Tampa, Florida, refused to authorize a strike. By the time an attack was approved, the target was out of reach. Rumsfeld was apoplectic over what he saw as a self-defeating hesitation to attack that was due to political correctness.

One officer described him to me that fall as “kicking a lot of glass and breaking doors.” In November, the Washington Post reported that, as many as ten times since early October, Air Force pilots believed they’d had senior Al Qaeda and Taliban members in their sights but had been unable to act in time because of legalistic hurdles. There were similar problems throughout the world, as American Special Forces units seeking to move quickly against suspected terrorist cells were compelled to get prior approval from local American ambassadors and brief their superiors in the chain of command.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact

-------

In the other topic you've mentioned about the importance of making sure conditions that drive soldiers to lunacy do not exist.

Frustration is one very driving condition. Especially when your troops are being killed and dying...and your own people "tie your own hands" so you cannot retaliate or do your tactics in normal war-time fashion.

That frustration will be vented out to someone, somewhere, somehow. As you said, there's a lunatic in everyone. And we're talking of survival.

Of course it is almost impossible to envision what you want to eliminate...for how can you monitor and make sure every soldier do not break any rules. It's bad anough to monitor bad employee habits in a contained environment such as a workplace...what more with soldiers out on a mission, on their own?

But there's one thing you can do though.

One thing that you should advocate is for civilians to butt out of military tactics and warfare. Political correctness do not have any place in war...unless if one does not consider that war a serious matter (and soldiers are nothing more than expendible props) to politicize matters at home.

[gerryhatrick]

But there's one thing you can do though.

One thing that you should advocate is for civilians to butt out of military tactics and warfare. Political correctness do not have any place in war...unless if one does not consider that war a serious matter (and soldiers are nothing more than expendible props) to politicize matters at home.

Uh-oh, the "political correctness" boogyman. Military tactics are up to the military. Policy decisions are up to civilians. That's the nature of a democracy.

Things go horribly wrong when you see (as we did recently in the USA) wishy washy instructions and implied approval of illegal activity from the top. When you see the lawyers of your leadership arguing that torture is confined to those things only likely to cause death, then the conditions are set for lunacy....for rifle butts to the face, electric shocks, cigarrette butts on the skin..etc.

That's why we need our leadership to speak up now, like the Bush administration failed to do.

[gerryhatrick]

There's one thing everyone is forgetting. The soldiers we talk about were plain old human beings long before they were soldiers. If torture doesn't work, then why would they continue to use it as a tool to gain intelligence? Are we to believe that all of these human beings are sadistic and just enjoy torturing other human beings for the sheer pleasure of it?

Your argument that human beings would only torture if - as rational human beings - it worked is incredibly naive.

I have told you repeatedly that people will say anything to get torture to stop. I gave proof of that....how one guy fingered 30 other prisoners as Saddams bodyguards. You ignore that logic. Fine.

Now you claim that soldiers wouldn't do it if it didn't work because they're human beings.

What absolute nonsense. Soldiers are trained to dehumanize the enemy. If people are brought to them and they're told to "softenup" them up because they're the enemy and have information that can save lives then what do you think is going to happen? The question of pleasure is irrelevant.

[speaker]

It may be irrelevant for the purposes of the discussion, but it's not in reality. People who gravitate towards and are selected by their superiors for this kind of "job" have the inclination.

[Hicksey]

There's one thing everyone is forgetting. The soldiers we talk about were plain old human beings long before they were soldiers. If torture doesn't work, then why would they continue to use it as a tool to gain intelligence? Are we to believe that all of these human beings are sadistic and just enjoy torturing other human beings for the sheer pleasure of it?

Your argument that human beings would only torture if - as rational human beings - it worked is incredibly naive.

I have told you repeatedly that people will say anything to get torture to stop. I gave proof of that....how one guy fingered 30 other prisoners as Saddams bodyguards. You ignore that logic. Fine.

Now you claim that soldiers wouldn't do it if it didn't work because they're human beings.

What absolute nonsense. Soldiers are trained to dehumanize the enemy. If people are brought to them and they're told to "softenup" them up because they're the enemy and have information that can save lives then what do you think is going to happen? The question of pleasure is irrelevant.

Again, I repeat: if torture does not work, then why are people still wasting their time with it? I highly doubt forces would waste their time with torture if there was nothing to be gained from it. If you are right, other than personal pleasure what reason is there for continued use of torture?

[Army Guy]

Monty:

QUOTE

The genva convention is very clear about the use of torture in regards to POW's and detainees

But the Geneva Convention do not identify terrorists as legal combatants. While the third Geneva Convention's definitions of prisoners of war are broad, it clearly doesn't include terrorists.

Yes the convention is very clear, even when dealing with terrorists, who are covered under serveral arts of the convention. Art 5 explains that until "terrorists have recieved a trail to determine thier status they are to be treated as a POW.

The soldiers making the capture do not have the powers to determine who is who, so all those captured are treated as POW's up until thier trial. Even once they have been declared a terrorist by a tribunal they are still entitled to fundamental Guarantees according to art 75. which are very similar to those afforded to POWS.

Soldiers have enough to worry about on the battle field, and don't need the added hassle of becoming a back room lawyer. the conventions are very clear, and they are meant to be so that there is no confusion as to what to do ...capture anyone and they are to be treated humanly until they are handed over, then it becomes someone else problem.

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Article 75.-Fundamental guarantees

1. In so far as they are affected by a situation referred to in Article 1 of this Protocol, persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or under this Protocol shall be treated humanely in all circumstances and shall enjoy, as a minimum, the protection provided by this Article without any adverse distinction based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria. Each Party shall respect the person, honour, convictions and religious practices of all such persons.

2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents:

(a) Violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular:

(i) Murder;

(ii) Torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental;

( iii ) Corporal punishment ; and

(iv) Mutilation;

( Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault;

© The taking of hostages;

(d) Collective punishments; and

(e) Threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.

[GostHacked]

I have no sympathy for "soldiers" who sneak around and don't wear uniforms.

So why do they have Special Ops guys in the US? They wear uniforms AND sneak around, but nothing you would recognize as standard military issue. And the terrorists do wear uniforms, pants, shirt, towel on head. And most of them are wearing the same colours.

[Army Guy]

Hicksey:

There's one thing everyone is forgetting. The soldiers we talk about were plain old human beings long before they were soldiers. If torture doesn't work, then why would they continue to use it as a tool to gain intelligence? Are we to believe that all of these human beings are sadistic and just enjoy torturing other human beings for the sheer pleasure of it?

Torture accomplishes very little in the ways of getting good intel, but it is alot faster than have a skilled interagator take days gathering the same intel, when a guy with a pair of pliers can rip out a few teeth and get the some sort of info in 10 mins.

Why is torture used, to terrorize the bad guys so that the other side might gain something useful. I now some have said it's War and screw the bad guys. But it is illigal and its wrong. and thier is so many other ways to get reliable info other than pounding some guy to death.

All i can comment on is how most Canadian soldiers handle detainees and POW's thier not tortured just processed, according to the convention. The last time Canadian soldiers mishandled a pow it cost this nation a good Regt.

[GostHacked]

This looks interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4828134.stm

A US film distributor has signed a deal to release The Road to Guantanamo, about three British Muslims held at the detention camp, in the US and Canada.

The Road to Guantanamo tells the story of the Tipton Three from the West Midlands, who went to Pakistan to arrange a wedding.

They were picked up as terrorist suspects in Afghanistan and taken to Guantanamo Bay, where they were held for two years.

The men were eventually released in 2004 without charge.

I wonder if these guys were tortured in any way shape or form. And if you happened to be one of the actors in this movie (so it may look mostly like re-enactment, and may be biased, who knows.. ) .....

On returning from Berlin last month, the actors who play the British inmates were questioned by police at Luton airport under anti-terrorism laws before being released without arrest.

[gerryhatrick]

Again, I repeat: if torture does not work, then why are people still wasting their time with it? I highly doubt forces would waste their time with torture if there was nothing to be gained from it. If you are right, other than personal pleasure what reason is there for continued use of torture?

Did you see the news today? US soldier convicted for cruel use of his dog on detainees "just for fun".

Your question is pointless. People do all kinds of things that there's no good reason for.

You think torture is good. Fine, write your MP asking that torture be part of the Canadian mission.

Officially Canada is against torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment. I want that position restated, and since that's our policy there's no harm in restating it. It can only be a positive to solidify our policy in everyones mind lest some cowboy get the idea that a little torture might be fun.

[betsy]

Again, I repeat: if torture does not work, then why are people still wasting their time with it? I highly doubt forces would waste their time with torture if there was nothing to be gained from it. If you are right, other than personal pleasure what reason is there for continued use of torture?

Did you see the news today? US soldier convicted for cruel use of his dog on detainees "just for fun".

Your question is pointless. People do all kinds of things that there's no good reason for.

You think torture is good. Fine, write your MP asking that torture be part of the Canadian mission.

Officially Canada is against torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment. I want that position restated, and since that's our policy there's no harm in restating it. It can only be a positive to solidify our policy in everyones mind lest some cowboy get the idea that a little torture might be fun.

I am against torture. And we all know Canada is against it too. It had been publicly stated and demonstrated at the time when our own soldiers were involved in torturing a POW.

Re-stating it will not make any difference.....as you said, there's a lunatic in everybody. Anyone can just crack up under pressure. The recent news regarding British soldiers beating up violent protesters....is an indication that no matter what, it is impossible to guarantee that everyone will behave properly and will follow the law. Besides, why should a PM lay it all out when it is not really necessary?

Yes, restating it will make no difference for some sick people do all kinds of things that as you said, there's no good reason for. I bet some sickos are attracted to military careers.

BUT who's to say that re-stating it will not cause any harm? Who knows.

I am not a military psychologist...and have no knowledge of warfare techniques, rallying troops, morale boosters and all that stuff involving warriors.

[na85]

Torture creates so much pain that the one being tortured is willing to give up information. That information saves lives.

If you actually think no one has been saved by torture, you are delusional.

I actually can't even see the argument from the other side you guys are so out to lunch.

Common sense.

You torture someone, they tell you the info to stop the torture. Sounds like a great idea.

Wow geoffrey, normally I find your arguments to be well-thought, succinct, and informed, but I'm sad to say you've dropped the ball on this one.

Numerous international studies have shown that the duress caused by torture often causes such stress in the victim that he or she will give ANY information, not necessarily information that is correct, to get out of it.

This is where many people's qualms with torture lie. Since it has been reliably shown that the victims are unreliable under torture conditions, we people opposed to torture see it as needless tormenting of others (be they innocent or guilty) with no concrete appreciable gain.

Surely this isn't the ravings of those who are out to lunch.

[gerryhatrick]

Wow geoffrey, normally I find your arguments to be well-thought, succinct, and informed, .

Numerous international studies have shown that the duress caused by torture often causes such stress in the victim that he or she will give ANY information, not necessarily information that is correct, to get out of it.

I've repeated this several times. They won't address it.

Torture = good, that's about as far as they can go.

[geoffrey]

Ok... I'm up for a little historical revisionism.

Let me re-state my views as follows:

I am not expert on psychology (my worst class actually) so I'm not qualified to say if torture works or not. Niether is anyone else on this board to the best of my knowledge, but we'll just say that it is 'unknown' if it works because I doubt if there is absolute proof.

Here is the thesis statement:

If torture is proven to yield valuable information, then no limits should be put on those that extract the information.

If anyone could convince me that torture doesn't work, I'd gladly condemn it as a big waste of resources. But I'm not so sure. I know I'd spill the beans if I was being tortured, who knows if it works on anyone else.

I have very little sympathy or respect for terrorists. That being said, unneccessary beatings, ticklings, and water drops are rather pointless forms of abuse if there is no gain from it.

So instead of my big statement being: "I'm pro-torture" it is now "I'm pro-getting information."

If it doesn't work, I cede this point to the left. However, I know it'd work on me.

[Army Guy]

geoffery:

I am not expert on psychology (my worst class actually) so I'm not qualified to say if torture works or not. Niether is anyone else on this board to the best of my knowledge, but we'll just say that it is 'unknown' if it works because I doubt if there is absolute proof.

I don't think you need to have a major in psychology to qualifiy any of us to say if torture works or not. In fact most here have said it does work, but the info provided is highly suspect. Because your telling them what you think they want to here to make the pain stop.

If torture is proven to yield valuable information, then no limits should be put on those that extract the information

And in doing so your allowing the Bad guys freedom to treat your prisoners in any matter, in regards to getting info, but would it stop there, The mistreatment of soldiers or POWs could be covered -up simply by saying we were torturing them to get info. Much like the Nazi's did, could they explain concentration camps this way, medical experiments, etc etc. "hey we just wanted to see if they had any info we could use".

If anyone could convince me that torture doesn't work, I'd gladly condemn it as a big waste of resources. But I'm not so sure. I know I'd spill the beans if I was being tortured, who knows if it works on anyone else.

To counter the possiable threat of soldiers being tortured and providing info that could be valuable to the enemy they limit the amount of info they give the every day soldier, they may know about what thier section or platoon is doing in a military action which is very limited and that is it. They may have a general knowledge of operations ongoing in the Camp say Kanadar, but nothing else.

The terrorist have taken this to a whole new level, by breaking down each task to the smallest level, IE the bomb maker builds the bomb, another puts it in the car, another drives the car to a place, and another guy detonates it. Each member in that group knows nothing of the other tasks. Except the guy whom organizes it all, on the military side it would be the CO who knows the whole plan "and he rarely accompanys the soldiers or is there for the actual mission but in the rear directing it all.

With all that said even if you torture a captured soldier, or terrorist odds are they don't have any valuable info to start with.

If it doesn't work, I cede this point to the left. However, I know it'd work on me.

The Military offers a course on how to resist interagation and torture, one of the biggest leasons everyone learns of this course is "everyone talks" it's just a matter of time.