What happens to detainees?

[betsy]

I'd refer all of you that think not hurting a terrorist is more important than saving innocent lives to the same psychiatrist.

Congratulations in winning your own straw man argument.

You have no proof that all who have been tortured in Abu Garaib (or anywhere else) were terrorists. Often they were completely innocent...just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or they were thieves. This is supported by US intelligence testimony. Those who claimi that all who are tortured are terrorists are only attempting to rationalize it for weak minds.

And besides that, nobody here has said "not hurting a terrorist is more important than saving innocent lives". That is a straw man argument you set up. I don't like torture because it's never been shown to work (often produces false or useless information) and it destroys the reputation of your nation and makes your soldiers targets for people who otherwise would not have targetted them.

Excuse me, but how many US troops were actually involved in this infamous torture incident?

[betsy]

I'd refer all of you that think not hurting a terrorist is more important than saving innocent lives to the same psychiatrist.

Congratulations in winning your own straw man argument.

You have no proof that all who have been tortured in Abu Garaib (or anywhere else) were terrorists. Often they were completely innocent...just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or they were thieves. This is supported by US intelligence testimony. Those who claimi that all who are tortured are terrorists are only attempting to rationalize it for weak minds.

And besides that, nobody here has said "not hurting a terrorist is more important than saving innocent lives". That is a straw man argument you set up. I don't like torture because it's never been shown to work (often produces false or useless information) and it destroys the reputation of your nation and makes your soldiers targets for people who otherwise would not have targetted them.

Who was our sitting PM when a handful of our own soldiers tortured a boy in Africa, not because he was a suspected terrorist...but for being caught sneaking in and stealing from the base? I think it was Chretien.

Did you demand from this same PM, (and the next PM Martin), to assume that this atrocious behaviour is very common among our troops that they must castigate the whole military and warn them against any future atocities such as this before being deployed as peacekeepers?

[gerryhatrick]

Excuse me, but how many US troops were actually involved in this infamous torture incident?

I don't have the exact number obviously. Does that mean you win? Read this and draw your own conclusions:

Revelations add to picture of US torture

AS THE Iraqi insurgency intensified in early 2004, an elite US special operations forces unit converted one of Saddam Hussein's former military bases near Baghdad into a top-secret prison. There, US soldiers turned a former Iraqi government torture chamber into their own interrogation cell, calling it the Black Room.

In the windowless room, soldiers beat prisoners with rifle butts, spat in their faces and used them for target practice in games of jailhouse paintball. Their aim was to extract information to help hunt down Iraq's most wanted terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, US Defence Department personnel said.

snip

Pentagon personnel who worked at Camp Nama said prisoners often disappeared into a detention black hole, barred from access to lawyers or relatives, and confined for weeks without charges. "There were no rules there," one Pentagon official said.

snip

The account of Taskforce 6-26 reveals the extent to which prisoners were mistreated months before and after the abuse at Abu Ghraib was made public in April 2004, and it makes nonsense of the original Pentagon assertions that abuse was confined to a small number of rogue reservists.

http://smh.com.au/news/world/revelations-a...2703216779.html

As for Abu Gharaib, the DoD has blamed 17 soldiers.

From Wikipedia:

The resulting political scandal damaged the credibility and public image of the United States and its allies in the prosecution of ongoing military operations in the Iraq War, and some critics of U.S. foreign policy argued that it was representative of a broader American attitude and policy of disrespect and violence toward Arabs.

The Department of Defense removed seventeen soldiers and officers from duty, and seven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault, and battery.

There was an Executive order in the USA allowing interrogation techniques such as dogs and sleep deprivation and stress positions. If your asking inexperienced guards to abuse people, how surprising is it that it would escalate?

Can Canadian troops engage in these interrogation techniques I wonder.....has it been approved at the top as it was in the USA.

[cybercoma]

Good call. Let's condemn the US for sleep deprivation and stress positions, while totally overlooking some of the most brutal torture in the world. Forget that the United States is using "discomfort" to get information that could save millions of people's lives....not letting someone sleep is WRONG! Get those terrorists a nice cozy bed, set the temperature in the room so it's comfortable for them and make sure room service is on time in the morning with their breakfast. I bet we'll get tons of info that way.

[gerryhatrick]

Forget that the United States is using "discomfort" to get information that could save millions of people's lives..

Millions of lives? Really? Provide an example of a single life that's been saved.

A policy from the top allowing inexperienced soldiers to engage in these kinds of acts creates an environment where much more evil abuse can occur, as it did.

And you obviously have not heard the latest news out of Iraq. It goes a little beyond sleep-deprivation.

Your sarcasm is funny, but it isn't hiding your ignorance.

[geoffrey]

Forget that the United States is using "discomfort" to get information that could save millions of people's lives..

Millions of lives? Really? Provide an example of a single life that's been saved.

A policy from the top allowing inexperienced soldiers to engage in these kinds of acts creates an environment where much more evil abuse can occur, as it did.

And you obviously have not heard the latest news out of Iraq. It goes a little beyond sleep-deprivation.

Your sarcasm is funny, but it isn't hiding your ignorance.

Your right. It should only be the best, more qualified torture guru's that do it. That way it's done with exactly the right amount of pain to get them to talk.

The US isn't in the business of sharing military intelligence, so I can't give you any exact examples of life savings, but they wouldn't be torturing if it didn't work.

Common sense please.

[GostHacked]

There are always going to be a few bad apples in the bunch. No doubts there. I would like to hope that not all our troops/commanders/politicians support the torture avenue. If they did, I would want them all out of office. We are not in the buisness of torture.

A gray line it seems about what is considered torture.

Think of it as the US's prision system. Solitary confinement, ect, take away all that they have. ALL, including religious articles.

Hypnosis is not that reliable, but I would imagine you would get more out of that than lets say pilling them naked in a pyramid in the middle of then room. Here is the real thing you all have to take into account. I will use GITMO as an example.

Do you support torturing terrorists?

Do you support torturing innocents?

Can you tell me who is who behind those bars in GITMO? Can you seperate the innocent from the guilty? All of them are termed enemy combatants and the 'police' can detain indefinately without question or charged in anyway shape or form. How can you really tell who is innocent and who is guilty among that group?

No charge, no trial, no rights, no evidence, no hope. I would not want to cooperate with the US if I was detained without cause/reason. No charges brought against me. I am a slave at this point. I am a noone. I can be erased and no one would notice. I would think that, even if the innocents are in GITMO, they won't remain innocent much longer. Influenced by the other actual (but not discernable) terrorists, the innocents would start to side with the terrorists.

I will say that I would think that some have died in the US's custody (GITMO or whereever) and I would say some are innocent. It would really suck to be an innocent in any of these prisions.

And with 'extraordinary rendition' the US clearly supports torture and terror.

Washington Post Says that torture does not net results.

Here is an article from News Hounds that watches Fox News so we don't have to. Over at Media Matters they really say the same thing as above.... and to quote Bush himself.

When asked about the practice at an April press conference, President Bush stated: "We seek assurances that nobody will be tortured when we render a person back to their home country."

So why are they rendering people to contries that they themselves constantly bitch about their Human Rights record? And here I am looking at the BBC, and an article on Uzbek torture and well that says it all.

The Arar case for example. - http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6 -Turns out he was innocent. This is the crap you idiiots want to avoid.

[gerryhatrick]

The US isn't in the business of sharing military intelligence, so I can't give you any exact examples of life savings, but they wouldn't be torturing if it didn't work.

Common sense please.

That is not a logical argument.

That's like pointing at what are generally considered mistakes in the aftermath of the Iraq war and saying "Well, allowing looting and disbanding the Iraqi army were both good moves because the US did them. Those decisions were intelligence matters, so they must have worked."

I guess you think you're being provocative or something, but you're certainly not making any decent argument to support torture.

[geoffrey]

That is not a logical argument.

That's like pointing at what are generally considered mistakes in the aftermath of the Iraq war and saying "Well, allowing looting and disbanding the Iraqi army were both good moves because the US did them. Those decisions were intelligence matters, so they must have worked."

I guess you think you're being provocative or something, but you're certainly not making any decent argument to support torture.

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.

[Shakeyhands]

Our new Defence Minister stated today on QP that any detainees would be handed to the Afghani's. What he failed to mention was that they would then be handed to the Americans. He was quick to point out that Canadians would not hand them directly to the Americans... hmmmm

[gerryhatrick]

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.

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.

I have some proof of my argument:

According to Pentagon documents, Mohammed Al-Qahtani, the alleged 20th 9/11 hijacker, accused 30 fellow prisoners of being Osama bin Laden's bodyguards -- after al-Qahtani was tormented by weeks of sleep deprivation, isolation and sexual humiliation.

http://www.latimes.com/services/site/premi...tered.intercept

Now, got any for your perspective other than "uhhhh its obvious, huh."

Don't waste our time with anymore of your "common sense" please, thanks.

[geoffrey]

All your evidence is that some people say it doesn't work, all mine is that some people say it does work. It's a losing argument either way. There are experts on both sides of the fence. Little evidence will exist either way because normally the government won't come out and say: "according to this detainee, Osama is located at x,y." It's all classfied information. They say it does work though. I can't understand why the military and CIA would use it if it didn't work right?

You lack a key aspect to your argument. Motive. Why would they torture if it didn't work?

I can tell you the only fact presented so far: if I was being tortured I'd say anything.

Would you be against torture if it did work? Or are you against it either way?

EDIT: The big argument a few months ago was whether to allow info from torture to be admissible in court. So apparently the evidence does exist. If a terrorist has to suffer for a few days to lock up more terrorists, I'm all for it.

[cybercoma]

All your evidence is that some people say it doesn't work, all mine is that some people say it does work. It's a losing argument either way. There are experts on both sides of the fence. Little evidence will exist either way because normally the government won't come out and say: "according to this detainee, Osama is located at x,y." It's all classfied information. They say it does work though. I can't understand why the military and CIA would use it if it didn't work right?

You lack a key aspect to your argument. Motive. Why would they torture if it didn't work?

I can tell you the only fact presented so far: if I was being tortured I'd say anything.

Would you be against torture if it did work? Or are you against it either way?

EDIT: The big argument a few months ago was whether to allow info from torture to be admissible in court. So apparently the evidence does exist. If a terrorist has to suffer for a few days to lock up more terrorists, I'm all for it.

Haven't you heard? The US government makes innocent military personnel conduct sessions of torture for their own amusement. They know it doesn't work for getting info. They're just in the business of hurting people for no reason.

[geoffrey]

Haven't you heard? The US government makes innocent military personnel conduct sessions of torture for their own amusement. They know it doesn't work for getting info. They're just in the business of hurting people for no reason.

I knew it! Those Americans...

[gerryhatrick]

Haven't you heard? The US government makes innocent military personnel conduct sessions of torture for their own amusement. They know it doesn't work for getting info. They're just in the business of hurting people for no reason.

I knew it! Those Americans...

hyuk hyuk!

[Montgomery Burns]

Gosthacked:

Here is an article from News Hounds that watches Fox News so we don't have to. Over at Media Matters they really say the same thing as above.... and to quote Bush himself.

Oh fer ffs! The moonbats at NewsHounds and the George Soros-funded Media Matters--who look out for "rightwing bias" in the media--90% of the site is devoted to the Faux News Channel?

So why are they rendering people to contries that they themselves constantly bitch about their Human Rights record? And here I am looking at the BBC, and an article on Uzbek torture and well that says it all.

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?

The Arar case for example. - http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6 -Turns out he was innocent. This is the crap you idiiots want to avoid.

Again, no proof whatsoever.

[gerryhatrick]

Again, no proof whatsoever.

No proof of what? You're incoherant.

[Montgomery Burns]

I can't believe that some are still whining about torture tactics like panties on the head, having a woman put a dog collar and leash around your neck (some guys dig that), loud Christina Aguillera music, loud rap music, cell too hot, cell too cold, and despite the numerous terrorists that have been recaptured trying to kill coalition troops when the US foolishly let these Islamonazis go free.

But when Nick Berg gets decapitated on video shown around the world....who cares? He's just a Joooo.

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.

[newbie]

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?

[gerryhatrick]

I can't believe that some are still whining about torture tactics like panties on the head, having a woman put a dog collar and leash around your neck (some guys dig that), loud Christina Aguillera music, loud rap music, cell too hot, cell too cold, and despite the numerous terrorists that have been recaptured trying to kill coalition troops when the US foolishly let these Islamonazis go free.

But when Nick Berg gets decapitated on video shown around the world....who cares? He's just a Joooo.

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.

Nobody cared about Nick Berg? What nonsense. You're spouting absolute drunken nonsense.

The point of the topic isn't really the nature of torture and what you think about panties on heads or dog collars. The point is Canadians don't want to risk the same conditions existing that allowed the tragic embarassment and undermining of US forces. Civilians were to blame.

Canada doesn't want that. If you gave a sh#t about Canada and our troops then you'd shut up and agree that this policy needs to be clarified out loud, regardless of what some might think should be understood and regardless of the high quality of our troops. Instead you're being a partisan with an uncaring and cavalier attitude about Canada and Canadian troops. You're not Canadian, correct?

[Hicksey]

I can't believe that some are still whining about torture tactics like panties on the head, having a woman put a dog collar and leash around your neck (some guys dig that), loud Christina Aguillera music, loud rap music, cell too hot, cell too cold, and despite the numerous terrorists that have been recaptured trying to kill coalition troops when the US foolishly let these Islamonazis go free.

I agree 100%.

The reality of the situation with torture is that if they were not getting useful information, they wouldn't be wasting their time by continuing to use it.

If I thought I could save just one soldier by employing any of the methods above, I'd authorize it in a heartbeat.

[Army Guy]

The genva convention is very clear about the use of torture in regards to POW's and detainees. To abandon any form of it , would send the message that we don't support the convention or we only support the parts we like. And in this case it's all or nothing. Canada has signed the convention and has agreed to abide by it. All of it.

My Webpage

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.

Regarding the reliabilty of info obtained during torture is a crock of shit. I could convince you to tell the world that the planet is square and the sky is purple in less than 10 mins. In fact if you just googled it "reliability of information obtained from torture" you'll find 90% of the sites will agree that info obtained is highly suspect.

A skilled indiv in interagation could learn more from just asking the right questions without threats or violence. but this is a lengthy process. And most of the intell you get from the AVG terrorist is going to be at the tactical level and is time sensitive "useless after a couple of days".

As for saving lives i don't think so, these guys are operating in small groups, the info they know about is limited to exactly what that indiv needs to know to do thier task. So the guy that triggers the bomb, does not know who planted it, who built it, etc etc, this protects the rest of the group, in case the guy does talk ...everyone got something to say to make the pain stop. Remember these guys in Afgan are veterns of the Russian invasion and the russians are not known for complying with human rights or the convention. And have developed thier tactics in many years of conflict.

That being said the question should be "would Canada be willing to risk our good reputation by agreeing to minor tortue to gain suspect info that would accomplish little".

When better info could be obtained thru the locals by winning the hearts and minds such as what happened in Kabul on serveral occasions.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Army Guy,

A very good post. I was just reading a book called 'Just and Unjust Wars' by Michael Walzer (1977), pg 325

For it is very rare, as Machiavelli wrote in his Discourses, "that a good man should be found willing to employ wicked means,"

Torture is based on fear. Fear of pain and fear of death (well, an untimely and/or messy death), which is incredibly similar to 'terrorism'. If you use it, you can't honestly condemn anyone else for using it.

[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

[Montgomery Burns]

Will detainees our soldiers have captured ever be turned over to the Americans?

And if so, will there be any assurances about thier treatment?

Supporting the troops means watching out for thier honor, something perhaps Harper is overlooking in his zeal to use them as a political backdrop.

Will Afghanistan children be beaten to death by our Canadian soldiers?

Will there be any assurances that this will not happen again a la Somalia?

Supporting the troops means bashing and portraying them as dumb brainwashed bloodthirsty killers who deliberately target civilians, because as we have been recently told, "dissent is patriotic".