I've heard of this type of behavior before...

[chicot]

I don't think that truck driver died.

274988[/snapback]

 

My mistake. I think you're right, though that was just pure luck that he didn't. I don't think the rentamob in Fallujah actually killed the contractors either - my recollection is that they were killed when masked men hit their vehicle with an RPG and then left the scene. It's not really that worthwhile trying to decide which was worse though - both acts were appalling.

[SilverNRed]

My mistake. I think you're right, though that was just pure luck that he didn't. I don't think the rentamob in Fallujah actually killed the contractors either - my recollection is that they were killed when masked men hit their vehicle with an RPG and then left the scene. It's not really that worthwhile trying to decide which was worse though - both acts were appalling.

275035[/snapback]

He was extremely lucky. I remember him on TV pleading for the violence to stop (possibly with Rodney King) and I don't think he had any serious after-effects from that serious head trauma.

 

EDIT: I didn't bring the correction up to show you up, just to note how lucky the man was.

[Alaska Darin]

I remember that one of them struck the driver with a bottle, which was barbaric.

274926[/snapback]

Actually, it was a brick.

[Canadian]

As a Canadian, it's interesting to watch how American attitudes towards torture are changing. Americans used to think torture was barbaric. Now it seems to be acceptable in some situations. In fact, the idea of torture being acceptable is such a part of the mainstream now, that you've got shows like "24" where the good guys are using torture (sometimes on the wrong people) every other episode or so.

 

This shift in thinking is understandable given the tragedy of Sept 11. Still, it's a weird shift in some ways. Most conservative Americans don't seem to trust their government very much... they basically see government as inefficient and error-prone. I don't know much about the U.S. constitution, but I assume the "right to bear arms" is at least partially rooted in a distrust of government. So from an outsider's point of view, it seems strange that Americans are increasingly OK with the idea of letting the government use torture as a legitimate tool. That's quite a bit of power to hand over.

 

I'm personally not sure whether torture is a legitimate way for a civilized country to extract information, or not. Seems to me that if a terrorist has plans to kill thousands of people, then torture might be necessary. The thing that bothers me is that no one talks about the DETAILS of torture... who is allowed to torture, and under what circumstances. For example, if a police officer goes to a coffee shop and overhears two guys discussing a bomb plot, he can certainly arrest them... but does he have a right to torture them for information? Or is that too much power for the police to have? Should only the army be allowed to torture people? Or the CIA? Should only the President be allowed to authorize torture as a means of information extraction? Should torture only be applied to non-Americans? Perhaps torture is OK in American POW camps (outside the country), but not on American soil or in American jails?

 

Why isn't anyone trying to get a handle on the rules for legitimate government-sanctioned torture? (Or has somebody written down the rules of torture somewhere and I'm not aware of them?)

[PTS]

As a Canadian...

275661[/snapback]

 

You can stop right there.

[Bishop Hedd]

As a Canadian, it's interesting to watch how American attitudes towards torture are changing.  Americans used to think torture was barbaric.  Now it seems to be acceptable in some situations.  In fact, the idea of torture being acceptable is such a part of the mainstream now, that you've got shows like "24" where the good guys are using torture (sometimes on the wrong people) every other episode or so.

 

This shift in thinking is understandable given the tragedy of Sept 11.  Still, it's a weird shift in some ways.  Most conservative Americans don't seem to trust their government very much... they basically see government as inefficient and error-prone.  I don't know much about the U.S. constitution, but I assume the "right to bear arms" is at least partially rooted in a distrust of government.  So from an outsider's point of view, it seems strange that Americans are increasingly OK with the idea of letting the government use torture as a legitimate tool.  That's quite a bit of power to hand over. 

 

I'm personally not sure whether torture is a legitimate way for a civilized country to extract information, or not.  Seems to me that if a terrorist has plans to kill thousands of people, then torture might be necessary.  The thing that bothers me is that no one talks about the DETAILS of torture... who is allowed to torture, and under what circumstances.  For example, if a police officer goes to a coffee shop and overhears two guys discussing a bomb plot, he can certainly arrest them... but does he have a right to torture them for information?  Or is that too much power for the police to have?  Should only the army be allowed to torture people?  Or the CIA?  Should only the President be allowed to authorize torture as a means of information extraction?  Should torture only be applied to non-Americans?  Perhaps torture is OK in American POW camps (outside the country), but not on American soil or in American jails? 

 

Why isn't anyone trying to get a handle on the rules for legitimate government-sanctioned torture?  (Or has somebody written down the rules of torture somewhere and I'm not aware of them?)

275661[/snapback]

 

 

 

Fine points. I've read about America's changing morals in regard to torture in a few publications and I think much of this change in values has to do with the mainstream media in this country and a war they are trying hard to sell. It's all in the images of what they show on TV, and what they don't. What they write about in the papers...and what they leave out.

[KRC]

Fine points. I've read about  America's changing morals in regard to torture in a few publications and I think much of this change in values has to do with the mainstream media  in this country and a war they are trying hard to sell.

275677[/snapback]

 

The mainstream media is trying to sell a war?

[SilverNRed]

Fine points. I've read about  America's changing morals in regard to torture in a few publications and I think much of this change in values has to do with the mainstream media  in this country and a war they are trying hard to sell.  It's all in the images of what they show on TV, and what they don't. What they write about in the papers...and what they leave out.

275677[/snapback]

Yes, Lord knows the mainstream media has been extra supportive of President Bush and the war. This coming at a time when troops come home from Iraq and are shocked at how the media portrays it.

[Canadian]

Fine points. I've read about  America's changing morals in regard to torture in a few publications and I think much of this change in values has to do with the mainstream media  in this country and a war they are trying hard to sell.  It's all in the images of what they show on TV, and what they don't. What they write about in the papers...and what they leave out.

275677[/snapback]

 

I don't know for sure, but it's possible that torture has ALWAYS been used by Western nations for extracting information. It's just that in the past, the use of torture was better concealed... governments did a better job of keeping it hidden from the press and the general population.

 

Today, because of the fear caused by 9-11 and because of positive portrayals of the use of torture on TV (e.g., shows like "24"), the public is more open to the idea of their government torturing people. Most people don't seem to care a lot about what goes on in Abu Ghraib, for instance.

 

Still, you'd think the public would be demanding SOME kind of government accountability. Maybe torture is necessary sometimes... but if so, there should be a set of rules established. Right-wing Americans are correct to not trust government. Laws regarding the use of torture need to be established so that future governments can't haul away people on false charges (e.g., "They were planning terrorist acts") and torture them.

[Alaska Darin]

because of positive portrayals of the use of torture on TV  (e.g., shows like "24")

275742[/snapback]

Feel free to explain this - especially the "positive portrayal" of it in "24." I get the distinct impression that you are referring to the recent article in the Canadian papers, rather than what's actually been on the show.

[Berg]

Why isn't anyone trying to get a handle on the rules for legitimate government-sanctioned torture?  (Or has somebody written down the rules of torture somewhere and I'm not aware of them?)

275661[/snapback]

 

They are documented in the UCMJ and the LOAC. Torture is neither legitimate nor sanctioned by the US Government.

[Alaska Darin]

They are documented in the UCMJ and the LOAC.  Torture is neither legitimate nor sanctioned by the US Government.

275892[/snapback]

That's Uniformed Code of Military Justice and the Law of Armed Conflict for you heathens.

[Canadian]

Feel free to explain this - especially the "positive portrayal" of it in "24."  I get the distinct impression that you are referring to the recent article in the Canadian papers, rather than what's actually been on the show.

275819[/snapback]

 

I don't know what articles you're talking about. I haven't read anything about this subject in Canadian publications. Up here, our big concern is the hockey strike.

 

Perhaps I should have used a different word instead of "positive".

 

On several episodes of "24" this season, the members of "CTU" (Counter Terrorist Unit) have used various strong-arm tactics to successfully extract important information from terrorists -- information that was needed to save the lives of millions of people. There was also a case where the show's hero, Jack Bauer, used electricity (if I remember correctly) to torture an apparently innocent civilian (his girlfriend's ex), mistakenly believing that the civilian was withholding information. When his distraught girlfriend later described this event to her father (a U.S. Senator), the Senator said that Jack was just, "doing his job".

 

So maybe "positive" isn't the right word, but torture does appear to be portrayed on "24" as effective and necessary. And the show also suggests that people in U.S. intelligence agencies have a right to use it under certain circumstances. In fact, according to the Senator character on the show, it is part of their job.

 

As for Berg's comment that, "Torture is neither legitimate nor sanctioned by the US Government"... well, that may be so. But I suspect a lot of people who watch "24" either believe that their government DOES use torture, or that it SHOULD have the right to use torture in certain circumstances. There doesn't appear to be a lot of public outrage over the use of torture on the show.

 

What is your opinion on the topic, Alaska Darin? Do you think western governments should have the right to torture suspected terrorists that they find at home or overseas? Or should we follow the Geneva Convention, provide due process to suspected terrorists, etc.?

[Alaska Darin]

Thus far on "24", they have used varying tactics to extract information - most of which could be considered torture by someone. Not one of them has had overly positive results nor been without repercussions in the other direction. Of course, it is a television show - therefore having little bearing on truth.

 

The terrorists aren't fighting for the flag of another country and aren't subject to the Geneva Convention. I'm reminded of that when they lop off the heads of innocent people like Nick Berg. You should be too. War ain't the least bit civilized and rules negotiated by people who don't "walk the walk" don't make it more so.

 

As far as how I "feel" about it: If it were me, and my gut told me the tango was a bad guy who had information I needed to save the lives of innocent people and I didn't have time to smoke cigarettes, drink coffee, and develop a meaningful relationship to get the guy to "give it up", bring me a hammer and take off his shoes.

 

Do I trust the government not to abuse this? No. But their abuse of power over the last 50 years or so has led us to this. Until the average Joe takes back the power from the government, I've got no choice but to trust the judgement of those on the ground getting dirty. They're alot less likely to let me down than my elected officials. I speak from experience.

[Canadian]

Thus far on "24", they have used varying tactics to extract information - most of which could be considered torture by someone.  Not one of them has had overly positive results nor been without repercussions in the other direction. Of course, it is a television show - therefore having little bearing on truth.

 

The terrorists aren't fighting for the flag of another country and aren't subject to the Geneva Convention.  I'm reminded of that when they lop off the heads of innocent people like Nick Berg.  You should be too.  War ain't the least bit civilized and rules negotiated by people who don't "walk the walk" don't make it more so.

 

As far as how I "feel" about it:  If it were me, and my gut told me the tango was a bad guy who had information I needed to save the lives of innocent people and I didn't have time to smoke cigarettes, drink coffee, and develop a meaningful relationship to get the guy to "give it up", bring me a hammer and take off his shoes. 

 

Do I trust the government not to abuse this?  No.  But their abuse of power over the last 50 years or so has led us to this.  Until the average Joe takes back the power from the government, I've got no choice but to trust the judgement of those on the ground getting dirty.  They're alot less likely to let me down than my elected officials.  I speak from experience.

275951[/snapback]

 

 

I agree with most of that. I think torture might be the practical response in an extremely time-sensitive situation, where many lives are at stake.

 

I also agree with your distrust of politicians.

 

However, "those on the ground getting dirty" have nothing to do with the issue of torture, in my opinion. Soldiers are supposed to kill and maim the enemy. They're supposed to inflict great harm. Everyone understands that and nobody (with any sense) disputes it. The issue of torture is really about how war prisoners are treated... people who are locked up in jails. This relates to the military insofar that the military usually guards the jails that house these people... but guarding prisoners at Guantanamo is not the same as being "on the ground getting dirty" in the middle of a war zone.

 

So the issue is, Should the American military or the American government be allowed to torture terrorists that they have captured as part of the war on terrorism?

 

The answer could very well be yes. I don't know.... it's one of those "does the ends justify the means" kind of issues.

 

You point out that, "The terrorists aren't fighting for the flag of another country and aren't subject to the Geneva Convention." This makes sense on the surface... but the thing that worries me about this line of thinking is that if the government or military knocks on your door tomorrow and accuses YOU of being a terrorist, then suddenly YOU lose whatever rights you thought you had. Insisting that the government respect the Geneva Convention isn't about protecting the "rights" of terrorists. It's about protecting your own rights from power-hungry or abusive future governments.

[Alaska Darin]

You point out that, "The terrorists aren't fighting for the flag of another country and aren't subject to the Geneva Convention."  This makes sense on the surface... but the thing that worries me about this line of thinking is that if the government or military knocks on your door tomorrow and accuses YOU of being a terrorist, then suddenly YOU lose whatever rights you thought you had.  Insisting that the government respect the Geneva Convention isn't about protecting the "rights" of terrorists.  It's about protecting your own rights from power-hungry or abusive future governments.

276065[/snapback]

I have a HUGE problem with the government holding American citizens against their will without their Constitutional protection. I fear the government that fears its citizens far more than some towel-headed boogieman who probably wouldn't exist had my own government kept its proverbial hands to itself.

[Bishop Hedd]

I have a HUGE problem with the government holding American citizens against their will without their Constitutional protection.  I fear the government that fears its citizens far more than some towel-headed boogieman who probably wouldn't exist had my own government kept its proverbial hands to itself.

276113[/snapback]

 

 

I'm assuming you'd be in agreement with the recent decision to free Jose Padillia...the so called "Dirty Bomber".

 

 

As if a bomb was ever clean wrote Yeats.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The answer could very well be yes.  I don't know.... it's one of those "does the ends justify the means" kind of issues.

 

You point out that, "The terrorists aren't fighting for the flag of another country and aren't subject to the Geneva Convention."  This makes sense on the surface... but the thing that worries me about this line of thinking is that if the government or military knocks on your door tomorrow and accuses YOU of being a terrorist, then suddenly YOU lose whatever rights you thought you had.  Insisting that the government respect the Geneva Convention isn't about protecting the "rights" of terrorists.  It's about protecting your own rights from power-hungry or abusive future governments.

276065[/snapback]

 

Actually, that's not the case. The people who some claim are being "tortured" are not US citizens, nor are they avowed citizens of any state for that matter.

 

If an American citizen was being held without justification, I'd certainly have a problem with that. But if the person being heldwas captured in Iraq or Afghanistan trying to bomb our soldiers or civilians, I have NO qualms with holding them indefinitely and in the worst possible conditions.

[Canadian]

Actually, that's not the case. The people who some claim are being "tortured" are not US citizens, nor are they avowed citizens of any state for that matter.

 

If an American citizen was being held without justification, I'd certainly have a problem with that. But if the person being heldwas captured in Iraq or Afghanistan trying to bomb our soldiers or civilians, I have NO qualms with holding them indefinitely and in the worst possible conditions.

276198[/snapback]

 

Here's an article from a New Zealand publication which reports that the Bush Administration has labelled an American citizen a "terrorist" and withheld the American's constitutional rights. Now I haven't researched the source of this article... and it certainly appears to have a liberal slant to it... but if this is true, does it worry you?

 

White House decides who is a terrorist

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Here's an article from a New Zealand publication which reports that the Bush Administration has labelled an American citizen a "terrorist" and withheld the American's constitutional rights.  Now I haven't researched the source of this article... and it certainly appears to have a liberal slant to it... but if this is true, does it worry you? 

 

White House decides who is a terrorist

276291[/snapback]

 

Yes that does bother me.

 

He is an American Citizen, even if he is an !@#$. If they had no specific and credible charges on which to hold him, he should have been released much sooner.