A group of retired military generals and admirals urged members of Barack Obama’s transition team Wednesday to establish a single, internationally accepted standard for the treatment of detainees, the Washington Post reported. In addition to being a violation of international law and America’s ideals, torturing is ineffective. “If the goal is to gain actionable intelligence . . . then we have to use the techniques that are most effective,” said John D. Hutson, a retired Navy rear admiral and former judge advocate general. “Torture is the technique of choice of the lazy, stupid and pseudo-tough.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- writerdog on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
33 Comments
Not only does the Bush regime torture Americans but he outsources the job of torture.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-detain4-2008dec04,0,4217198.story
Republicans shouldn’t read the article so they can continue their ignorant lives believing Bush and his cronies aren’t anti-American criminals.
Really good interview yesterday on NPR with a military interrogator who has written a book regarding the most effective interrogation techniques, which doesn’t include torture. Torture has been proven to be ineffective when trying to obtain accurate information and actually backfires in the long run. Much more effective to gain trust, empathy, and attempt to get the detainee on our side.
(read in best Republican voice) “If it works for Jack Bauer then we should do it too”
I thought an internationally accepted standard existed in the Geneva Convention. Maybe it only existed until Bushco crapped all over it and now we need something new.
Much more effective to gain trust, empathy, and attempt to get the detainee on our side.
————-
Mary, that is naive silliness.
“If the goal is to gain actionable intelligence . . . then we have to use the techniques that are most effective,” said John D. Hutson
====================
Yes, we do. If that take making the detainee feel that the are in grave danger, so be it.
“outlander” –
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97818033
Now who’s naive?
Yes, be nice to those terrorists…
If they know of an impending plan that will occur in a few hours that will kill hundreds of people, one would:
(1)Serve them tea and cakes to garner their trust
(2)Ask them what flavor of mints they want under their pillow and if the are enjoying the fruit basket
(3)Hold limit on female visits and booze until they talk.
Once again the naivity of NPR and the poster who are bleating the NPR solution is demonstrated.
Why? Because the interrogator is in the military and bound by the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.
CIA field operatives are on bound by such restrictions.
“I thought an internationally accepted standard existed in the Geneva Convention. Maybe it only existed until Bushco crapped all over it and now we need something new.” — devster
——
True. They make distinctions like wearing uniforms, they pull words out to justify their actions, whatever is convenient for them is used. Like choosing which veterans are honorable and which aren’t. Sad, isn’t it? Then they spend the rest of their time denigrating those who don’t march lock step with whatever is today’s new marching orders.
lindainks and others,
The Geneva Convention applies to military uniformed personnel only, it does not apply those who act outside of a countries sponsorship, endorsement or approval.
Once again, the naivety of the Libs on this blog is flabbergasting.
They call war with terrorists and other non-uniformed terrorists asymmetrical warfare. One is fighting against an ideology,not a nation.
Terrorists are the equivalent of pirates. They are a collection of heartless individuals with no country ties and no moral lines from which they have to honor.
They would just as soon put a high explosive nail and gas bomb in Bluejay’s son school as they would attack a military target. In fact, the school is easier because it is a soft target and would make a more powerful statement for their warped cause.
Listening to the libs whine is a method of torture I’m sure will be affective.
Please stop! I’ll confess to anything you want to hear. I killed Kennedy when I was 9, Lincoln in my former life and I went by the nic Brutus before that.
“The Geneva Convention applies to military uniformed personnel only, it does not apply those who act outside of a countries sponsorship, endorsement or approval.” — Regular
——-
Where is Paul / Econ / Franklin when you need him? Regular and he could argue semantics all day long. Many loooong boring posts about what the Geneva Convention covers.
Hey, Regular, have you decided which veteran you will dishonor today? Ya know, who really deserves the rights you deserve and who doesn’t?
“They would just as soon put a high explosive nail and gas bomb in Bluejay’s son school…”
They wouldn’t do that, you silly rabbit, it’s not his fight.
Hey the market being down is just sticking it to the rich.
There’s nothing to trickle down economics!
On a positive note oil looks to be headed below $40- cheap gas is more money in my pocket!
#
lindainks55
Posted December 5, 2008 at 9:57 am | Permalink
“The Geneva Convention applies to military uniformed personnel only, it does not apply those who act outside of a countries sponsorship, endorsement or approval.” — Regular
——-
Where is Paul / Econ / Franklin when you need him? Regular and he could argue semantics all day long. Many loooong boring posts about what the Geneva Convention covers.
Hey, Regular, have you decided which veteran you will dishonor today? Ya know, who really deserves the rights you deserve and who doesn’t?
—————–
That all you got lindainks?
I notice you remain silent when other mock and deride my military service.
hypocrite
Here comes the pretend “I’m-so-hurt-by-the-mean-LIBs-picking-on-me, a-disabled-vet” routine that Regular trots out everytime he wants to avoid the actual issue of his massive hypocrisy for living entirely off the gov’t teat while wanting to cut hungry and sick kids off and let them starve in the street.
It seems to me that asking the questions, 1) is holding detainees indefinitely without charges consistent with American values, or even laws? 2) is it consistent with American values to torture people whether they are uniform military, or not?
In the country I grew up in, the answer to both quesitons would be NO. To argue otherwise seems to be a tortured exeercise of changing the usual meaning of words. Indeed, where is Paul ECON Rossell when you need him?
StevenEDavis, I fully agree with your sentiment. To allow torture as a policy goes against what it is (or once was) to be America and American.
“Regular
Posted December 5, 2008 at 9:05 am | Permalink
Yes, be nice to those terrorists…
If they know of an impending plan that will occur in a few hours that will kill hundreds of people, one would:…”
A key assumption that would make your arguement somewhat reasonable is that the interrogators know that “they know of an impending plan that will occur in a few hours that will kill hundreds of people.”
When you watch ‘24′ sure everyone knows there is a specific and impending plot to do whatever.
In reality that is just not the case.
There may be incidents when the authorities breakup a plot before it happens and would need to know things in a time sensitive manner, but that is not the case in Guantanamo and it is not the case with the extraditions our country has sponsored.
#
CapnAmerica
Posted December 5, 2008 at 11:06 am | Permalink
Here comes the pretend “I’m-so-hurt-by-the-mean-LIBs-picking-on-me, a-disabled-vet” routine that Regular trots out everytime he wants to avoid the actual issue of his massive hypocrisy for living entirely off the gov’t teat while wanting to cut hungry and sick kids off and let them starve in the street.
——————–
Most vets in the street are drug/alcohol abusers. They couldn’t/wouldn’t survive if you gave them $5,000/ month to live on. They’d blow it on on drugs and/or alcohol.
There are some just too stupid, too belligerent or too self-destructive to help and that’s a fact.
“Some [vets] are just too stupid to help.”
Wow, that’s a keeper . . .
“Most vets in the street are drug/alcohol abusers. They couldn’t/wouldn’t survive if you gave them $5,000/ month to live on. They’d blow it on on drugs and/or alcohol.
“There are some just too stupid, too belligerent or too self-destructive to help and that’s a fact.”
* * * * *
This article:
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opfritop5952295dec05,0,2170798.story
indicates that there seems to be an existing suspicion at the V.A. that claims from former servicemen are fraudulent.
I am surprised that “Regular” would take the same stance.
As for myself, I would like to see every person injured as a result of their service to our country get the benefits they deserve. This would seem to be the right thing to do.
Talk to a CON long enough, and you’ll finally get to their core conviction: I’m just better than everybody else, eff ‘em.
Mega dittos, Steven.
Saying that “drug addicts can’t be helped” is more CON blaming the victim.
WHO MADE THEM DRUG ADDICTS?
According to CONs, being sent into a war zone and asked to mow down civilians that pose no threat to you will have no effect on one’s future mental health.
Well . . . maybe not if you’re a CON and you basically don’t give a crap about anybody else.
But for most sentient humans, that would be a tough thing to live with.
Regular just wants to spit on them as he calls them “too stupid to help.”
‘Course, you were in the rear with the gear the whole time, weren’t you, big fella . . .
Getting back to the origial post about torture . . . but I thought torture was ESSENTIAL to Homeland Security.
Now all these generals want it banned.
Which CON will be first to call the generals “terrorist lovers”?
“Regular
Posted December 5, 2008 at 11:52 am | Permalink
Most vets in the street are drug/alcohol abusers. They couldn’t/wouldn’t survive if you gave them $5,000/ month to live on. They’d blow it on on drugs and/or alcohol.
There are some just too stupid, too belligerent or too self-destructive to help and that’s a fact.”
Sad but true.
I truly hope that as part of a review of the VA and its services something tangible can be done to help this situation.
So there’s a distinction between a hurt back and a hurt psyche? Only physical injuries justify help and support? Guess that’s why torture that doesn’t maim or kill is acceptable?
I’m just better than everybody else, eff ‘em.
============
Yes, yes I am.
I am one magnificent bastard!
oh yeah, FU!
We can define torture (just like porn) all we want and it will always be subject to “interpretation.” The action that will do the most toward reducing torture will be a leader’s conviction in the World Court, followed by imprisonment.
“Jed
Posted December 5, 2008 at 2:33 pm | Permalink
We can define torture (just like porn) all we want and it will always be subject to “interpretation.” The action that will do the most toward reducing torture will be a leader’s conviction in the World Court, followed by imprisonment.”
That is why you should expect to see Bush and Co spending a lot of time in Paraguay in the coming years.
Mary was right and it has been proven to be the most effective way to gather information from those meaning to do terrorism. Having been told and trained to expect to be tortured. But being faced with a fair treatment they begin to question what they thought they knew of the enemy. The Japanese soldiers and citizens were told that the American Soldiers were cannibals and if captured they would eat you alive.
The soldiers would fight to the death and the citizens would kill them selves rather then be captured alive.
Also it has been found more effective to bribe the terrorists for a group of fanatics whom would die in the name of their cause. They seem to have a greedy side and will give information for money.
When tortured, they will generally say whatever they think their captors want to hear to make the torture stop. Truth, remorse, desire to change their ways, turning over a new leaf and wanting to prevent future terrorism are not things they think about; they are only concerned with making the torture stop.
As many have noted, and numerous studies have shown, torture does not produce results. (It may make the torturees talk, but it doesn’t make them say anything helpful.)
“Mary, that is naive silliness.”
I think the person in the interview was more of an expert on what works and what doesn’t than you, Out….he has been a military interrogater for over 20 years. I think he knows what he’s talking about.