Another arab terrorist takes a Cuban vacation.

[DanS]

The only thing we know is that we have him in custody. We don't know how he got there, when he got there, or even if he's there as a guest or a convict. This is no holds barred information warfare (hopefully).

[Admiral]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Torture is bad A. when it is done on innocents B. when it pervades a judicial system, and becomes a tool in the hands of the state against domestic political enemies C. When classic "torture" methods are used that inflict so much pain that they elicit false and unreliable information.

None of which is what Gitmo was all about. It was the use of a borderline techniques designed to break people and make them more likely to reveal info - it was used against a fairly small number of individuals, all of whom were foreigners (an important point, since it means it could not be used as a domestic political tool) almost all of whom were clearly connected with Al Qaida, who by their status as unlawful combatants were NOT protected by the Geneva convention, etc. And who WERE connected to an organization that is at war with virtually the entire world.

By using said techniques in Iraq(and by mismanaging the prisons in Iraq, so that further techniques which were not approved ANYWHERE were used), the DoD has endangered their justified usage elsewhere. Feith is longer working for the government (a fact about which there seems to be an odd silence) Im not sure Rummy shouldnt also be held responsible.

No. This isn't about US law, or political advantage, or anything. Torture is wrong, and there can be no justification. Torture is the distillation of all the pain of war into an ultimate form, designed to destroy the world of the one who is tortured. The Question is a fiction, something presented to the outside world to legitimize torture, but in reality, once the pain threshold of the victim is passed, and they break, nothing they say can be trusted, as they will say anything. One does not gain intelligence through torture, one destroys intelligence.

It doesn't matter if it was only used against a small number of people, it doesn't matter who they are connected to, or anything. Once the US tortures them, or knowingly gives them to a third party expecting to have the third party torture them, the US loses any moral high ground it has.

You mention that we are only using borderline techniques, to which I have two responces. A) Would it be ok if we used tactics that bordered on genocide? Of course not. Just because it isn't quite an extreme evil doesn't make it acceptable. B) The slippery slope argument. Abu Ghraib hurt our ability to fight effectively. And Abu Ghraib happened because, from the highest levels of government, there was an atmosphere of permissivity for techniques that bordered on torture. In this context, of course people are going to cross the line, and engage in outright torture. The stress of their position is something that the Defense Department has trouble understanding, and it is no surprise that they'd crack, or confuse the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

In the end, torture by the US would be about revenge. And when we consider that in the minds of Al Qaida, terrorism is motivated by revenge, we see that we would be no better than them. And I care enough about my country not to want that to happen.




But in response to the OP, .

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Lancer
Still looks like Ming...

Doesn't he look a bit more like rah?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DanS
The only thing we know is that we have him in custody. We don't know how he got there, when he got there, or even if he's there as a guest or a convict. This is no holds barred information warfare (hopefully).

"Al-Libbi, who allegedly orchestrated two assassination attempts against Musharraf, was arrested after a firefight on the outskirts of Mardan, 30 miles north of Peshawar, capital of the deeply conservative North West Frontier Province, the government and security officials said"

If he was arrested after a firefight, hes presumably not a guest. Since there are officially no US troops in Pakistan, and certainly no ground troops engaged in fire fights, he was presumably arrested by Pakistanis. Whether he is still in Pakistani custody is not clear. For reasons I made clear above, I think he will be left in Pakistani custody for some time, since he is a tough character and will require techniques of interrogation beyond "tell us where bin laden is, pretty please?" In any case he has apparenly commiitted major crimes in Pakistan, including two assasination attempts on Musharraf. The Pakistanis have plenty of reason to want the first shot at him.

[rah]

Where's Jack Bauer when you need him

[DanS]

LotM: You're just spinning assumptions. By law, our guys can't lie to our press (they can refrain from telling the press lots of things, of course). But they can ask the Pakistanis to lie to our press and our guys can lie to their press no problem. Whatever information is best tactically for us to be in the press is in the press, no matter the truth. Don't take that quote at face value.

[alva]

From what I've heard on the news, this guy is the brain behind two failed terrorist attempts. That really the guy we want to arrest? I say let him gon then we're all save!!!

[Lawrence of Arabia]

theres a 95% chance that osama is not in iran. hes arab, iranians are persian, and they dont like each other much.

[Straybow]

Except the problem is that any attack has a possibility of failure and a possiblity of success. Leaving him around to make repeat attempts is called "tempting fate" to most of us.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
theres a 95% chance that osama is not in iran. hes arab, iranians are persian, and they dont like each other much.

which is why the Iranians have no ties to Lebanese Hezbollah which is arab, or to any of the Palestinian groups which are both arab and Sunni. And why the Iranians have had no ties to the govt of Syria, secularist, and made up of allawites, who are hardly muslims.

Not.

In any case theres still a high chance Osama isnt in Iran. Several other high level AQ guys are, under "house arrest" despite Saudi requests for extradition. Whether the house arrest is genuine or not is a matter of some dispute.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DanS
LotM: You're just spinning assumptions. By law, our guys can't lie to our press (they can refrain from telling the press lots of things, of course). But they can ask the Pakistanis to lie to our press and our guys can lie to their press no problem. Whatever information is best tactically for us to be in the press is in the press, no matter the truth. Don't take that quote at face value.

Yah, anythings possible, I suppose. Have there been any cases of Pakistani arrest announcements that have since proven dramatically false (aside from upping the date a few days)? Nothing in this rings particularly false to me, and i'll give it the benefit of the doubt for now.

[Straybow]

Iran might tolerate him for a little while but they know he would eventually be more trouble than he's worth.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Torture is bad ... When classic "torture" methods are used that inflict so much pain that they elicit false and unreliable information.

That is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.

"GEE THIS TORTURE ISN'T SO BAD THAT I'D SAY ANYTHING TO STOP IT, BETTER TELL THE TRUTH INSTEAD"

[Sandman]

Borderline torture, eh? That's just super.

Are there any mental torture techniques which go too far? Or are they all good?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
Borderline torture, eh? That's just super.

Are there any mental torture techniques which go too far? Or are they all good?

is there anything beyond "tell the truth please, it would so help us?" that would be acceptable? Being questioned is unpleasant - does that mean you will always get false answers? Does it mean its always wrong to question a prisoner?