Meanwhile, Back at the Water Board

Matt Welch | March 31, 2005

The ACLU keeps pumping out government documents related to detainee/prisoner interrogation and torture. The latest is "a memo signed by Lieutenant General Ricardo A. Sanchez authorizing 29 interrogation techniques, including 12 which far exceeded limits established by the Army's own Field Manual."

"General Sanchez authorized interrogation techniques that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Army's own standards," said ACLU attorney Amrit Singh.

Comments

|3.31.05 @ 12:22PM|#

"General Sanchez authorized interrogation techniques that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Army's own standards," said ACLU attorney Amrit Singh."

I'm no expert on military law, but shouldn't General Sanchez explain himself before a court-martial then?

SamGrove|3.31.05 @ 12:32PM|#

Further evidence that agents of state consider constitutional limitations on state power to be something to be gotten around rather than a desirable state of affairs.

|3.31.05 @ 12:34PM|#

Would the general's nickname happen to be "Dirty"?

|3.31.05 @ 12:35PM|#

What Ken Shultz asked!

sean|3.31.05 @ 12:47PM|#

I read the source document, and my opinion is that most folks who read it will go, "Yeah, what's the big deal?" Oooh....."stress positions" for up to an hour. TORTURE! This doesn't seem to be the smoking gun that perhaps the ACLU is looking for. Of course, bullet 2c)of the September memo states that Gen Sanchez must approve in writing specific instances of many of the options presented here, so there should be written documentation of any of the specific instances of torture, or else we can probably conclude that it wasn't some top-down policy decision to make naked prisoner pyramids. Or, I'm sure the lack of documentation will prove JUST HOW DEEP THE CONSPIRACY GOES! Yawn....

|3.31.05 @ 12:54PM|#

I read the source document, and my opinion is that most folks who read it will go, "Yeah, what's the big deal?" Oooh....."stress positions" for up to an hour. TORTURE!

If Orwell has taught us anything, it's that the government never euphemizes.

|3.31.05 @ 1:00PM|#

But does the Geneva convention apply?

|3.31.05 @ 1:07PM|#

For the uninitiated, "Stress Position" = what the NVA did to John McCain at the Hanoi Hilton. You know, the reason he can't lift his arms above his chest.

|3.31.05 @ 1:14PM|#

""""""The Sanchez memo dated September 14, 2003, specifically allows for interrogation techniques involving the use of military dogs specifically to "Exploit(s) Arab fear of dogs�," isolation, and stress positions.""""""

SO we can infer from this great investigative effort that a)'man's best friend' may be too broad a term (shiver me timbers!), b)there is an autophobic epidemic in the arab world, and c)it's OK to cram our soldiers into small barrels during survival training, but prisoners are too good for that.

|3.31.05 @ 1:15PM|#

Joe-
Such tactics are only evil when BAD GUYS do them, not when Our Troops do.

|3.31.05 @ 1:17PM|#

Joe,
Who knows anymore. Used to be that either you were a combattant or a criminal - protected either by the US adhering to the Geneva Conventions (even if you weren't a signatory) or by the US Constitution.

|3.31.05 @ 1:25PM|#

If you wish to know what "stress position" means ask a veteran to explain the "easy chair", "hanging out" and "watching TV". Now enjoy them for an hour while someone is holding a gun to your head.
I'm not taking a stand on the issue here...merely making sure the issue is clear.

|3.31.05 @ 1:27PM|#

Arab fear of dogs
Huh? That's news to me. I guess I should've been afraid of those dogs I had growing up. Heck, even my relatives have dogs. The only way I can see this is that dogs are considered filthy animals and you have to go through major cleaning hoops after touching dog saliva in order to go to the mosque or pray.

|3.31.05 @ 1:32PM|#

[i]If you wish to know what "stress position" means ask a veteran to explain the "easy chair", "hanging out" and "watching TV[/i]

Or you could do us the favor........

|3.31.05 @ 1:37PM|#

"Or, I'm sure the lack of documentation will prove JUST HOW DEEP THE CONSPIRACY GOES! Yawn..."

So the decision to prosecute would lie with who? It's not with the Attorney General, is it? I don't it would be, not because of the obvious conflict, but because it's not his jurisdiction, right? It would be under the Department of Defense, right?

...Oh but wait! Didn't the Schlesinger Report say that Rumsfeld himself signed off on a couple extracurricular torture activities and cite the Gonzales Torture Memo? ...Why, indeed, I think it did! ...It's on .pdf pp.9-10 of 126.

http://www.npr.org/documents/2004/abuse/schlesinger_report.pdf

...Now where's that Special Prosecutor when you need him?

|3.31.05 @ 1:38PM|#

"it's OK to cram our soldiers into small barrels during survival training, but prisoners are too good for that."

You mean, like when I do certain things to my wife, it's ok, but when I try to do them to random women on the street while they shout "No no no!" the cops look at me funny?

Ape, please complete this sentence: "soldiers are crammed into barrels during training to help prepare them in cased they are ever ____________ by the enemy."

|3.31.05 @ 1:38PM|#

and c)it's OK to cram our soldiers into small barrels during survival training, but prisoners are too good for that.

Actually, I think the point is that it's okay to cram soldiers (who joined voluntarily) into small barrels to train them how to survive, but prisoners (75% of whom, according to the army, were innocent), should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty of something before we do the same to them.

|3.31.05 @ 1:39PM|#

A. Hugged

B. Greeted warmly

C. Tortured

D. Initiated into a fraternity.

|3.31.05 @ 1:52PM|#

"The only way I can see this is that dogs are considered filthy animals and you have to go through major cleaning hoops after touching dog saliva in order to go to the mosque or pray."

Yeah Mo, I know several Arab families--complete with dogs.

I once heard about a Senior VP who, while addressing his entire company staff in a diversity training session, explained that the reason there weren't any women in senior management was because women are too emotional--this is the same kind of thing.

...People hear so much propaganda, and they repeat it, and they repeat it to their friends, and their friends repeat it back to them and then they believe it. Suddenly, using attack dogs like a bunch of SS officers to frighten uncharged auslanders isn't torture, it's simply taking advantage of a [non-existent] aspect of the enemy's culture.

...It's just like the anti-German and Japanese propaganda posters from World War II--Arabs worship the Moon God, Arabs hate their women, Arabs are afraid of dogs.

...It's always a shock, but people really believe the propaganda.

P.S. I've worked with dogs a lot. I'm not an Arab, but I am afraid of military attack dogs. Is there someone here, per chance, who isn't afraid of military attack dogs?

|3.31.05 @ 1:55PM|#

Very well,
Easy chair: sit on the ground and lay back as if in an easy chair with your feet up except that the only part of you that is supported is your butt touching the ground...lean back a little farther now and really put your feet up and relax.
Hanging out: Keeping your entire body from your head to your feet perfectly straight extend an arm out to the side resting against a tree or wall so that your body is around 45 degrees from the ground. No movement allowed. Be sure to look cool.
Watching TV: While face down with your body straight as if doing push-ups, bend your elbows and rest them against the ground while using your hands to prop up your head so your toes and elbows are the only parts in contact with the ground...occaisionally change the channel by extending an arm out to use the remote....talk in detail about what you are watching.

|3.31.05 @ 2:08PM|#

Joe-
It's "D." I know this because Rush said so.

Swamp Justice|3.31.05 @ 2:16PM|#

Is there any truth to the rumor that all the Army is building a giant "Tower of Babel" naked human pyramid using the Gitmo prisoners?

|3.31.05 @ 2:16PM|#

please complete this sentence: "soldiers are crammed into barrels during training to help prepare them in cased they are ever ____________ by the enemy."

i'll take a swing:

"soldiers are crammed into barrels during training to help prepare them in case they are ever _crammed into a barrel during interrogation_ by the enemy."

|3.31.05 @ 2:17PM|#

Maybe Zarqawi should start having his people hang out with muzzled dogs to train them for the horrors that await them upon capture.

|3.31.05 @ 2:21PM|#

joe,

i'm not sure how you can equate sex with war. also, cramming people into barrels does not involve contact, striking, drawing blood, disjointing, etc. That's what makes it OK(in my book) and renders you Madlib moot.

LES,

So you're saying that any and all non-citizen POWs and 'enemy combatants' should be put through a full legal rigamarole with evidence and lawyers and all that jazz before we can consider questioning them under duress? Are you insane?

|3.31.05 @ 2:32PM|#

Eryk,

That's it? Shit, that's just a hazing flashback, except we had rock salt too if we really fucked up. If my captor told me that the above was the sort of "torture" I was up against "or else", it would take every ounce of strength not to bust out laughing in his face. Not that its easy or fun, but compared to a McCain flogging, bring it on.

I really hope that stuff isn't what the ACLU is getting bent out of shape about because there are far more fraternity pledges than there are locked up arabs.

|3.31.05 @ 3:05PM|#

In more positive news, the U.S. has dropped its objections to a French led effort to try Sudanese war crimes before the ICC: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=628266

|3.31.05 @ 3:12PM|#

Is there any truth to the rumor that all the Army is building a giant "Tower of Babel" naked human pyramid using the Gitmo prisoners?

Sort of. They're rebuilding Babylon to hasten the end times. That's the real reason we invaded Iraq--to bring about the Rapture. It's really quite ingenious of the fundies. They elected Bush, they got us into this mess, they're working to hasten Armageddon, and then when the shit is about to hit the fan for 7 years they all check out via the Rapture and us infidels are left behind to deal with the end times mess that the fundies brought about.

Or at least that's what the voices in my head told me.

|3.31.05 @ 3:14PM|#

Memo: The term Chinese Water Torture is no longer accurate, since water dripping on your forehead isn't that bad. The new term is Chinese Water Hazing.

|3.31.05 @ 3:22PM|#

"They elected Bush, they got us into this mess, they're working to hasten Armageddon, and then when the shit is about to hit the fan for 7 years they all check out via the Rapture and us infidels are left behind to deal with the end times mess that the fundies brought about."

Ha! Seriously, I expect him to sell out the Evangelicals just like he sold out the budget busters, the marginal rate tax cut guys, the free trade people and everybody else who thought he was on their side.

"The new term is Chinese Water Hazing."

Bah Ha!

|3.31.05 @ 3:54PM|#

I SAY KILLEM ALL AND LET ALLAH SORTEM OUT.

|3.31.05 @ 4:54PM|#

So you're saying that any and all non-citizen POWs and 'enemy combatants' should be put through a full legal rigamarole with evidence and lawyers and all that jazz before we can consider questioning them under duress? Are you insane?

Perhaps. But it's more likely that I wasn't clear. My point is that the army apprehends lots of lots of innocent people and are more than willing to admit as much (to their credit). Are you saying that in order to extract information generally perceived as "useless" by most experts, it's okay to put innocent people through what you call "questioning under duress?" Are you a totalitarian?

|3.31.05 @ 4:54PM|#

thoreau [falling out of my chair] it's posts like that that keep me coming back here...

|3.31.05 @ 4:57PM|#

Now come on Les, it's a war dammit, by definition a "total" attempt to subdue.

Our guys wouldn't do that shit back here at home, posse comitatus and all that, it's only 'cuz they're "hajis"....right?

|3.31.05 @ 5:03PM|#

"So you're saying that any and all non-citizen POWs and 'enemy combatants' should be put through a full legal rigamarole with evidence and lawyers and all that jazz before we can consider questioning them under duress? Are you insane?

I would only add that--of course--POWs shouldn't be given all the protections of citizens--they should be given all the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

There's nothing insane about such a policy--it's the policy we have now, is it not? The Bush Administration abandoned the "duress" policies you seem to be championing--not to conform with some court order, but out of sheer embarrassment.

...You didn't read the Schlesinger Report, did you?

|3.31.05 @ 5:47PM|#

LES,

probably more likely that you weren't clear. I think the point of distinction that needs to be made is the military rounding up known innocents with the intent of questioning them under duress as opposed to rounding up people they have legit reason to believe are not innocent with the intent to question them under duress, if necessary, but who may turn out to be innocent after all. You can't bat 1.000 on everyone you pick up, but given that this is a war and not your local US city PD, the rules are certainly different. Ideally you'd like to have some primary-level confirmation that someone isn't just an innocent bystander before moving from regular questioning to duress.

Ken,

Didn't read The Report and don't plan to since I'm not debating points of a specific policy. I'm just debating the merits of people's definitions of torture and application of duress. Though I will say that embarrassment is no way to run a government by (yeah i know bad sentence). Call my cynical, but when dealing with a fanatical opponent, relying on their sympathy, a plea-bargain, or a case of Stockholm Syndrome is generally not the best way to get intel. BY no means is everything elicited by non-torture duress questioning useful or even true, but there is still plenty of good info to be gained.

|3.31.05 @ 6:09PM|#

Ape,

If you approve of rounding up people because of a legitimate reason, don't you think it's essential that we define what "legitimate" means? Of course, the military has their definition, but what, exactly, has the military done to deserve unquestioning approval of its actions (considering its history of dishonesty and incompetence, a history it shares with every other government organization)? If an innocent person is imprisoned and sodomized and or beaten until dead (both of which occurred in many cases), does it really matter that the army says they had a legitimate reason to sodomize and/or beat them to death?

You said, BY no means is everything elicited by non-torture duress questioning useful or even true, but there is still plenty of good info to be gained.

Two things. First, define "non-torture duress" and "torture." Second, I'd appreciate a source or reference to your assertion that such questioning provides "plenty of good info."

|3.31.05 @ 6:18PM|#

"Didn't read The Report and don't plan to since I'm not debating points of a specific policy. I'm just debating the merits of people's definitions of torture and application of duress."

That's my point. No one in the Bush Administration is making your argument anymore. If you had read the Schlesinger Report, you would know that Rumsfeld changed policy on advice from the Goznales Torture memo, and then changed it back to what it is now when he realized what a horrible mistake he'd made.

...I find myself entirely curious as to why this is such a point of interest. If not to defend the Administration, why do people defend the placement of other human beings under physical duress but, supposedly, not torturing them? Really, I'd like to understand.

...If a stranger told me that running a cat up a flag pole by its tail wasn't as bad as cutting its tail off, I don't think I'd stop for a moment and ponder the validity of that statement. I'd just back up slowly, go home and make sure the cat was alright.

"Call my cynical, but when dealing with a fanatical opponent, relying on their sympathy, a plea-bargain, or a case of Stockholm Syndrome is generally not the best way to get intel."

So should we expand the use to include domestic crimes? Should we go after child pornographers this way? White slavery rings?

...Torture's like slavery to me. I don't care if slavery was the most efficient economic system ever--slavery is morally wrong, so it had to go. I don't care if torture is highly functional--it's morally pathetic, and I'll never support it.

...And you're right, by the way, I haven't seen any indication that torture is an effective way to obtain reliable information--even in the ticking time bomb scenario.

|3.31.05 @ 6:30PM|#

...I find myself entirely curious as to why this is such a point of interest. If not to defend the Administration, why do people defend the placement of other human beings under physical duress but, supposedly, not torturing them?

My best guess is that some people will support anything that sounds "tough on terror."

|3.31.05 @ 9:10PM|#

Les,

Of course guidelines are necessary, but keep in mind that this is a grey issue. Nobody deserves unquestioned authority in the matter. These guidelines should be established in joint fashion between military and civilian personnel. Given that the military is the enforcement vehicle for those rules (with some crossover to intellgence agencies), we have no choice but to give them the benefit of the doubt w/r/t on the ground, real-time enforecment and interpretation. And if someone is a total fuck-up, then we have court marshalls.

Concerning a definition of torture, as I stated previously (in slightly less detail), invasive contact, hard striking, non-incidental drawing of blood, intentional disjointing, etc. are not OK. Under these conditions your sodomybeating would never have come close to happening.

To your final request, you seem to be claiming that useful info can be extracted at only 2 extremes of interrogation, non-duress or torture. It's absurd to draw such definite lines. and forgive me for not poring over reams of declassisfied documents for you. its a logical inference.

Ken,

a) Like I said, I'm not debating points of a particular policy. I don't care what the BA thinks or has changed or whatever Gonzo wants to dance around. i'm just working on my own here.

b) do you really think that duress necessitates torture? Think of it as a universe of two concentric circles, with duress being the bigger one and torture being the smaller one inside it. we can debate endlessly on the relative sizes of each.

c) don't compare a random act of animal abuse with the prosecution of a war where your enemy and your innocents wear the same uniform.

d) i just said in my previous post that war is a different situation than your local PD would handle. this is not a domestic debate. two different spheres

e) yes torture is wrong. i never said it wasn't. your interpretation of the word seems overly broad.

|3.31.05 @ 10:13PM|#

Ape,

To your final request, you seem to be claiming that useful info can be extracted at only 2 extremes of interrogation, non-duress or torture.

No claims, I promise. I only wanted you to provide evidence to back up your claim that good info can be gotten under duress. I'm sure that it's happened, but I know for a fact that bad information had been gotten under duress as well (there's a long history of false confessions under duress).

Given that the military is the enforcement vehicle for those rules (with some crossover to intellgence agencies), we have no choice but to give them the benefit of the doubt w/r/t on the ground, real-time enforecment and interpretation.

See, I could only give the benefit of the doubt to an organization that has a history of admitting mistakes instead of covering them up.

|3.31.05 @ 10:43PM|#

"...do you really think that duress necessitates torture? Think of it as a universe of two concentric circles, with duress being the bigger one and torture being the smaller one inside it. we can debate endlessly on the relative sizes of each."

You can debate endlessly about the supposed differences between duress and torture--that's what Gonzo did, indeed, that was the substance of his torture memo.

"You have asked for our office's views regarding the standards of conduct under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment as implemented by Sections 2340-2340A of title 18 of the United States code. As we understand it, this question has arisen in the context of the conduct of interrogations outside of the United States. We conclude below that Section 2340A proscribes acts inflicting, and that are specifically intended to inflict, severe pain or suffering, whether mental or physical. Those acts must be of an extreme nature to rise to the level of torture within the meaning of Section 2340A and the Convention. We further conclude that certain acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to fall within Section 2340A's proscription against torture. We conclude by examining possible defenses that would negate any claim that certain interrogation methods violate the statute."

----Torture Memo, August 1, 2002

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/dojinterrogationmemo20020801.pdf

Using the example of slavery, I can argue that there's some sort of nuanced difference between stripping a man of his rights and forcing him to work for me and real slavery all night long, but any objective observer will tell me that such a rose by any other name would still stink the same.

...There are psychological forms of torture that should be disallowed. There are classic game theory, pure pressure scenarios that, plainly, should be allowed. However, it is my opinion that anytime we physically manipulate prisoners for the sole purpose of extracting information, we've crossed the line. When we do that, we betray the Constitution and we betray the Conventions.

When I was growing up, every little kid I ever played war with knew that the Geneva Conventions stipulated that, once captured, a prisoner only had to give name, rank and serial number. The Conventions themselves might make a distinction between the way POWs and Enemy Combatants are treated, but every recruit is taught the Conventions in boot camp, and Alberto Gonzales tried to...oh wait...that's right...you don't want to hear about what the Bush Administration really did.

...Suffice it to say that I blame the stain on our national character that Messrs. Bush, Gonzales and Rumsfeld perpetrated at Abu Gharib on the confusion created by Rumfeld's change of torture policy at Guantanamo, and the Schlesinger Report does too.

"In the Summer of 2002, the Counsel to the President queried the Department of Justice Office of Legal Council (OLC) for an opinion on the standards of conduct for interrogation operations conducted by U.S. personnel outside of the U.S. and the applicability of the Convention Against Torture. The OLC responded in an August 1, 2002 opinion in which it held that in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict sever physical or mental pain and suffering that is difficult to endure."

----The Schlesinger Report, .pdf pp. 9 of 126

The Gonzales Torture Memo is, as shown above, dated August 1, 2002 and uses the same verbiage described.

I've seen so many people come on this board and regurgitate the propaganda they've swallowed so many times along the lines of that ridiculous claim above--the one that Arabs are uniquely afraid of military attack dogs--that I tend to dismiss anything that sounds like a "talking point" I've heard before, and that probably isn't fair. So I've tried to put a reasoned response together for you here, indeed, the reason I refuse to accept some sort of nuanced interpretation of torture is because, as I've documented above, this is what led directly to the mountain of disgrace America had to swallow after Abu Gharib.

I don't believe the distinction between physical duress and torture really exists, which is to say that if we let the military put prisoners under physical duress, I believe they will torture them.

...At the top of this thread I suggested that Sanchez should answer for what he ordered. Assuming he gave his orders in a period outside the timeframe of when Rumsfeld altered our torture policy, do you agree that Sanchez should face a court-martial?

|4.1.05 @ 12:27AM|#

OK, first, how do I do italics? I�m web-illiterate.

Les,

*****I'm sure that it's happened, but I know for a fact that bad information had been gotten under duress as well (there's a long history of false confessions under duress).

Right, I said that already. It�s logical to assume that good info exists at all three �levels� of interrogation. The question, as it has been this whole time, is what means of acquiring that info are appropriate or not?

*****See, I could only give the benefit of the doubt to an organization that has a history of admitting mistakes instead of covering them up.

Our military detains prisoners they capture in the course of executing a war. If you don�t trust the military with this task, then who should do our warring? Please say your not going to create another level of bureaucracy called �The Office of Wartime Prisoner Management� or something.

Ken,

*****You can debate endlessly about the supposed differences between duress and torture--that's what Gonzo did, indeed, that was the substance of his torture memo.

Which is why I said there should definitely be some basic ground rules. Sanchez looks to have laid these out pretty well in his Sep memo. Commentary on some selected techniques:
Y: Dog muzzled and under control of handler at all times to prevent contact with detainee.
------If I remember right from one of the pictures, this protocol was not followed. The verbiage is crystal clear.
Z: Detainee provided min. 4hrs sleep per 24hr period, not to exceed 72hrs.
------Investment banking analysts would love to have a rule like that implemented on Wall Street. And I am wholly serious when I say that.
CC: Stress positions: Use of physical positions (standing, sitting, kneeling, prone, etc.) max 1hr per use. Use of technique max 4 hrs with adequate rest between positions.
------If you really see this as torture then you should concentrate some humanitiarian efforts here at home and start a crusade to indict thousands of fratguys as serial torturers in the 1st degree.
U: Environmental manipulation: Conditions may not be such that they injure the detainee. Detainee is accompanied by interrogator at all times. Special qualifications depending on detainee�s country of origin.
------ more likely than not hypothermia and heat stroke count as injury, esp since the interrogator is in there too.
General Safeguards: 2)there is reasonable basis to believe that the dtee possesses critical intelligence (just for you Les) 3) dtee is medically and operationally evaluated as suitable for techniques to be used in combo. 4) interrogators are specifically trained. 6) there is appropriate supervision 7) there is appropriate specified senior approval.

If any of the above, or anything else in the Sanchez memo, is at odds with the Geneva Convention, then so am I and it needs revision. The memo never goes near anything like physically invasive abuse or beatings. CC could be loosely interpreted to allow naked pyramids, but I highly doubt it since I can�t imagine what interrogation value that would have.

So w/r/t Sanchez, I have a problem with him if and only if he had a direct hand in violating the text of his own directive. Superiors have a responsibility for the deviant actions of their underlings, but only to a certain degree since superiors are not professional babysitters.

*****I don't believe the distinction between physical duress and torture really exists, which is to say that if we let the military put prisoners under physical duress, I believe they will torture them.

The workouts I used to put myself thru for rugby training were far more debilitating than anything outlined in the Sanchez memo. I certainly don�t think of my coach as an evil torturemaster because of it.

|4.1.05 @ 1:14AM|#

The workouts I used to put myself thru for rugby training were far more debilitating than anything outlined in the Sanchez memo. I certainly don�t think of my coach as an evil torturemaster because of it.

Along with your comments about frat guys and investment bankers, this misses a major point. All of the people you're mentioning endured these discomforts voluntarily and willingly.

The army itself admits to large numbers of innocent people being arrested. If you're going to justify forcing innocent people to imprisonment and involuntary duress, you're ethically obligated to clearly demonstrate that the duress is necessary to save lives (or at least prevent the imprisonment and duress of an equal or greater number of innocents).

I think it's unethical to treat innocent strangers differently than we would treat members of our family. Well, not everyone in my family is innocent, but you get the point.

|4.1.05 @ 8:02AM|#

Les,

*****Along with your comments about frat guys and investment bankers, this misses a major point. All of the people you're mentioning endured these discomforts voluntarily and willingly.

I disagree. First off, they help illustrate the difference between plain duress and toture that I've been talking about. I wouldn't classify common everyday occurrences that we don't ever think twice about as toture. Second, the people listed don't join up because they want to do those things as an end in and of themselves, but they understand thetit's going to be part of the job. When someone conciously decides to fight a war, they certainly don't do so with the desire to undergo interrogation under duress, but its an unpleasant possibility that goes along with the job description of trying to kill other people.

*****If you're going to justify forcing innocent people to imprisonment and involuntary duress, you're ethically obligated to clearly demonstrate that the duress is necessary to save lives

That's the whole point of safeguard 2. Anyone that does possess "critical intelligence" is at the very least an accomplice or aids and abets.

I'm perfectly OK with rounding up innocents for non-duress questioning. This is war.

|4.1.05 @ 11:54AM|#

Ape,

I'm perfectly OK with rounding up innocents for non-duress questioning. This is war.

I think the bottom line is that you trust the military to effectively implement safeguard #2 (thanks for thinking of me, btw), and I don't, only because the military has done nothing but demonstrate its inability to do so.

|4.1.05 @ 12:23PM|#

I would echo Les' comment in regards to the difference between voluntarily subjecting yourself to the rigors of conditioning and the treatment of prisoners.

I would also add that you should learn how to use tags. I can't show you how to do that here, because the tags go invisible--they wouldn't show up. ...So here's a link that will show you how to make italics and bold, etc.

http://www.globalnets.com/education/htmlbook/guide.html

|4.1.05 @ 2:02PM|#

That's a pretty cool link.

That's a pretty cool link.

Hit and Run

Free Labor and Free Markets!

SP

|4.1.05 @ 2:08PM|#

I think the bottom line is that you trust the military to effectively implement safeguard #2 (thanks for thinking of me, btw), and I don't, only because the military has done nothing but demonstrate its inability to do so.

Hope that shows up all slanty-like.

i'm always thinking of you Les; you know that ::cue scary stalker music::

Anyways, I'm curious, if not the military, then who? They are already on the ground doing the fighting, which is what militaries do, so do we have Prison Dept. personnel follow every unit around?

|4.1.05 @ 3:16PM|#

For those of us too lazy to look at Ken's link above, you can use <i>Text to italicize</i> to italicize and <b>Text to bold</b> to bold-face text. To include a link, use <a href="full-url-of-web-page-to-link-to">Text that appears in the browser as the link</a>. Use the quotation marks as shown in the link example and remember to put in the "http://" part of the url.

The <i>, <b>, and <a> tags are start tags and </i>, </b>, and </a> tags are end tags. (Notice the /). You can think of them like parentheses in a mathematical expression, in that it's ok to nest them but not overlap. "<i>italic <b>bold italic</b> italic</i>" is legal, but "<i>italic <b>bold italic</i> bold</b>" is NOT legal.

Also, the posting software will close any tags you open in a paragraph that you don't close yourself. Remember that if you're quoting by italicizing more than one consecutive paragraph of someone else's post.

Finally, you can use "&lt;" and "&gt;" (without the quotation marks) to put in the "angle brackets" in your post. If you want to be absolutely sure about seeing the "&" in the output, use "&amp;".