Fake Menstrual Blood Used Among Guantanamo Interrogation Techniques

What greater mortification could there be than killing? I'll take mentstrual blood on my face or my conscience anyday...

 

And so, since a few brown guys killed a bunch of white guys, anything other than killing is fine since it's not as bad as being killed. Oh, and it's okay to kill them too. Oh, and it's okay if these weren't even the guys who killed our guys too. Translation: some of our guys got killed so we're morally justified to do anything whatsoever to any brown guy forever.

Incidentally giddyup, there absolutely are people who believe there are worse things than dying. There are people who value their eternal life and their relationship with their God over anything on this mortal plane. Maybe they're just more religious than you are. I don't know. But regardless of that, this is the single most bogus argument that has come out of your side of the aisle in the last few years. Since certain Arabs (mostly Saudi's) perpetrated 9/11, literally any heinous torture tactic or war effort is justified against ANY and ALL Arabs. Then again, that's merely racist. The Abu Ghraib stuff adds religious persecution and psychosexual torture into the mix -- again punishing one set of brown Muslims for the actions of another set of brown Muslims. It is the most un-American, unpatriotic, anti-God, anti-Church stuff we could dream up. And you not only support it, you do it with a smile. Nice.

 

Yawn. Batman trying to invoke the race card again... Sigh...

 

Originally posted by Batman Jones

And so, since a few brown guys killed a bunch of white guys, anything other than killing is fine since it's not as bad as being killed. Oh, and it's okay to kill them too. Oh, and it's okay if these weren't even the guys who killed our guys too. Translation: some of our guys got killed so we're morally justified to do anything whatsoever to any brown guy forever.

<b>I didn't call for a dousing with menstrual blood for every "brown guy..."

These guys are identified as enemy combatants. What is your motivation or justification in playing the Race Card? We are talking about a very limited population of suspicious people here. </b>

Incidentally giddyup, there absolutely are people who believe there are worse things than dying. There are people who value their eternal life and their relationship with their God over anything on this mortal plane. Maybe they're just more religious than you are. I don't know.

<b>If I thought that smearing a little menstrual blood (real or fake) would keep me from Eternity, I'd find a new belief system. If I'm dealing with people who believe that killing even a single infidel will gain them Eternity, I'd rather do whatever I have to to prevent that from happening. BTW, I probably am saving Muslim lives as well-- albeit American Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Warlocks, and Christians all.</b>

But regardless of that, this is the single most bogus argument that has come out of your side of the aisle in the last few years.

<b>Kramerica! I'm astounded that you don't see the potential...</b>

Since certain Arabs (mostly Saudi's) perpetrated 9/11, literally any heinous torture tactic or war effort is justified against ANY and ALL Arabs. Then again, that's merely racist. The Abu Ghraib stuff adds religious persecution and psychosexual torture into the mix -- again punishing one set of brown Muslims for the actions of another set of brown Muslims. It is the most un-American, unpatriotic, anti-God, anti-Church stuff we could dream up. And you not only support it, you do it with a smile. Nice.

<b>Are you suffering eye strain? Can you point up where I called for or justified any heinous torture tactic against any and all Arabs?

So I guess since all of the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor were killed, we should have let all the other enemies go? Is that the extrapolation of what you are saying?</b>

 

giddyup, your whole argument is totally based on what you would feel and what your understanding is. The only problem is, that as knowledgable as you might be, there are things you don't know. You don't know how they feel about it, then don't use the phrase "if it was me". According to my shallow English knowledge, when I say "if it was me", I would TRY to put myself in others' shoes, at least try. I don't think you are sensitive enough about others' believes.

Your post made me recall the incident that Steve Kerr mistakenly called Yao a China Man, which is not a nice term, defined by history. He didn't know, and lots of posters on this BBS didn't know. It's totally understandable, nobody knows everything. When it was pointed out, he admitted the mistake and apologized. For me, the incident is over. But some posters kept complaining that why Chinese people are so sensitive, and they didn't see anything wrong with China Man. It goes further, someone said that he wouldn't mind people calling him "Spain Man". There was no dark and sad history behind "Spain Man", but there IS plenty behind "China Man", and Chinese are sensitive about it. Lots of knowledgable people know about it.

It is fine, that you don't know about something. But it's wrong to intentionally spin to downgrade some humiliation. And it's even worse if one knows and pretends not to know. It's like you walk on the street, see an African-American, and call him the "N" word, then you try to explain to him, in a very upbeat tone, that you don't think there is anything wrong with the term, and lecture him that he shouldn't be too sensitive. To prove your point, you even say that you don't mind that people call you the "N" word, (if you are Caucasian). I dare you.

 

My whole argument is based on... the fact that the people being treated in such manner are our enemies who would kill us.

When it comes to my mortal enemies who are terrorists whose aim is to kill as many innocents as possible, I reject Sensitivity Training.

The point is to get these people to tell what they know. If it were as easy as "just asking them," we would. In fact I imagine that we tried that a long time ago.

I'm very much a live and let live kind of guy, but my toleration stops where a threat begins. The folks in prison at Gitmo are high profile suspects.

Yes, some of them have been held unreasonably, but blame that on the enemy who wears no uniform who belongs to no army who seeks that anonymity that makes him undistinguishable from the innocent. We have no choice in my opinion.

I know that Batman is ready to die rather than offend someone. Others here would apparently make that choice as well. Others would not but you don't get over trying to insinuate racist motives where there are none.

 

They are? They aren't POW's. They haven't been through any trial or had any chance to show that they weren't. They are there because someone in our govt.(check out their track record for honesty lately.) says they are our mortal enemies. There may be no other evidence than that, and certainly none that anyone has had a chance to refute.

If we took them as POW's that would be one thing. If we gave them a trial, and presented the evidence that would be something else. But just taking our govts. word for it, when we know they've been wrong, and lied in the past, as well as tortured, and even sent other innocents off to be tortured by different govts. since this war has started. So we should all just take their word for it? I don't buy that.

 

The point is that we are putting psychological pressure on them to get them to reveal information. We want information that they are not willing to give us when we ask them, so we need some way to get it out of them. I don't think we should physically torture them, so that leaves psychological torture. Of course they don't like it, that is the point. I got this thing of track arguing about what the Christian analog of every Islam-based torture was; that is irrelevent. The point is that they are not being harmed, but are still being coerced into providing information. Questioning people without physically harming them seems right up the libs alley. Since that is apparently also unacceptable, how would you guys suggest we get information.

 

How do they come up with these cool techniques?

 

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5312

Enemy Combatants

Project: Roundtable on Old Rules, New Threats

MEMORANDUM

To: Members of the ASIL-CFR Roundtable

From: William J. Haynes II, General Counsel of the Department of Defense

Subject: Enemy Combatants

There is no doubt that the attacks of September 11, 2001 constituted acts of war. They possessed the intensity and scale of war. They involved at least one military target, the Pentagon, and they came on the heels of a decade of attacks by al Qaida on U.S. military and civilian targets. Congress on September 18, 2001 authorized the President to use force in response to the attacks. And both the United Nations and NATO recognized that the attacks were "armed attacks" within the meaning of the UN Charter and NATO treaty. Since September 11th (and perhaps before then), we have been at war - both legally and in fact.

War implicates legal powers and rules that are not available during peacetime. Among other things, the war context gives the President the authority to detain enemy combatants at least until hostilities cease.

Enemy Combatant

An "enemy combatant" is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): "Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war."

"Enemy combatant" is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).

The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President's determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.

Authority to Detain

The President has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. See, e.g., Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (1942); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946). The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed this proposition. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002). The authority to detain enemy combatants flows primarily from Article II of the Constitution. In the current conflict, the President's authority is bolstered by Congress's Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001, which authorized "the President . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force" against al Qaida and against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines" committed or aided in the September 11 attacks." Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (emphasis added). This congressional action clearly triggers (if any trigger were necessary) the President's traditional authority to detain enemy combatants as Commander in Chief.

Presidents (and their delegates) have detained enemy combatants in every major conflict in the Nation's history, including recent conflicts such as the Gulf, Vietnam, and Korean wars. During World War II, the United States detained hundreds of thousands of POWs in the United States (some of whom were U.S. citizens) without trial or counsel. Then as now, the purposes of detaining enemy combatants during wartime are, among other things, to gather intelligence and to ensure that detainees do not return to assist the enemy.

Who Decides

The determination of enemy combatant status has traditionally resided with the military commander who is authorized to engage the enemy with deadly force. In this regard, the task ultimately falls within the President's constitutional responsibility as Commander in Chief to identify which forces and persons to engage or capture and detain during an armed conflict. Of course, there is no requirement that the President make such determinations personally, and in the vast majority of cases he does not do so. Rather, consistent with longstanding historical practice and applicable rules of engagement, the task is normally a function of the military command structure.

In the current conflict, military personnel ordinarily make enemy combatant determinations during combat operations, under the combatant commander's direction. With respect to individuals captured in the United States, to date DoD has detained only Abdullah al Muhajir, also known as Jose Padilla. The President, as Commander in Chief, determined that Mr. Padilla is an enemy combatant.

Detainee Rights

All of the detainees are unlawful combatants and thus do not as a matter of law receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. However, the United States armed forces are treating, and will continue to treat, all enemy combatants humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. Among many other things, this means that they receive: three meals a day that meet Muslim dietary laws; medical care; clothing and shoes; shelter; showers; soap and toilet articles; the opportunity to worship; the means to send mail and receive mail, subject to security screening; and the ability to receive packages of food and clothing, also subject to security screening. In addition, the International Committee of the Red Cross has visited and will continue to visit the detainees privately. The detainees will be permitted to raise concerns about their conditions, and we will attempt to address those concerns consistent with security.

The non-citizen detainees in Guantanamo have no right to habeas corpus relief in U.S. courts. See, e.g., Coalition of Clergy v. Bush, 189 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2002), affirmed on other grounds, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23705 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2002). As noted above, however, we have permitted the ICRC access to the detainees, and we have notified each detainee's country of origin that the detainee is in DoD control.

U.S. citizen enemy combatants who are detained in the United States may challenge their detention by a petition for habeas corpus. In the view of the U.S. government, enemy combatants have no right to counsel to challenge their detention. Providing enemy combatants a right of access to counsel could thwart our ability to collect critical information and could imperil efforts to prevent further terrorist attacks. It might also enable detained enemy combatants to pass concealed messages to the enemy.

In Padilla v. Bush, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23086 (S.D.N.Y. December 4, 2002), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently upheld the government's ability to detain U.S. citizen enemy combatants in the United States but required the government to provide access to Padilla by his attorneys for limited purposes. We are currently reviewing the court's decision.

Length of Detention

Many have claimed that enemy combatants are being detained "indefinitely." The suggestion appears to be that they are being detained lawlessly and without limit. That is not true. As explained above, the constitutional power to detain during wartime is well settled. In addition, international law - including the Third Geneva Convention - unambiguously permits a government to detain enemy combatants at least until hostilities cease. There may be uncertainty about when hostilities cease in the novel conflict with al Qaida. But disquiet about indefinite detention is misplaced for two reasons.

First, the concern is premature. In prior wars combatants (including U.S. POWs) have been legally detained for years. We have not yet approached that point in the current conflict. Second, the government has no interest in detaining enemy combatants any longer than necessary, and the Department of Defense reviews the status of all enemy combatants on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they should continue to be detained. Since we first captured or came to control detainees in Afghanistan, we have released many thousands, and we recently released additional detainees from the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But as long as hostilities continue and the detainees present a threat or retain intelligence or law enforcement value, no law requires that the detainees be released, and it would be imprudent to do so.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capturing and detaining a U.S. citizen, or any other human being, is not an activity DoD takes lightly. As in other armed conflicts in which our Nation has been engaged, the detention of enemy combatants serves a vitally important protective function. Equally important, however, the deliberate, conscientious, and humane manner in which we designate and detain enemy combatants reflects our values and character as a Nation. We are committed to defending the United States in accordance with our constitutional responsibilities, while preserving the constitutional rights of United States citizens.

 

Come on, we all know he just LOVES to ban them from chat, U.S. citizen or not!

 

WOW. I guess I was naive and really didnt beleive that this BBS could or would have such extreme racist views. Whenever I read TJ or bigTeXxx's posts its kinda like watching a train wreck. You know its gonna be real bad and probably make you feel sick at the end of it, but your transfixed because you cant believe its actually happening. If someone cant see how its wrong to treat prisoners who have NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANYTHING with CRUEL AND UNUSUAL punishment than your pretty much blinded by your pro-war/american/whatever sentiments. Im muslim, born and raised in Houston. I dont think that terrorism is in any way tolerable, however the men in Gt. Bay havent been on trial and convicted of being terrorists. When I read the article about what was happening to them it had me PISSED and I was sure that most others here would be pissed too. Instead I find people saying they have no sympathy for 'these people' and making jokes about it. Its disgusting and vile and for people... EDUCATED PEOPLE at that to say its ok simply makes me wonder what kind of people are we in america. I think im just babbling but I really cannot believe what some people here truthfully see as the truth.

PS- all the stuff about how adultery and having women who are not your wife touch you being against Islam... well Im pretty sure that its against christianity too..

 

This is why there is this amazing feature called an "ignore list". I wish more people would use it on these two idiots, not out of apathy or defeat, but to save us all the aggravation and depression of having to hear and see what strong-willed hatred and ignorance can bring about. Personally, I get enough of that every day in the news.

 

They're enemy combatants captured in a WAR. The US is interrogating them to keep their idiot Muslim extremist friends from running more planes into buildings in the future. If that requires smearing a magic marker on them to acquire information, I'm FINE WITH THAT. We have to keep our country safe, and having trials before interrogating caputured combatants from a war could interfere with the goal of acquiring information from them.

Please point out to me how I've been racist. I haven't. I'm not racist.

by the way - it's spelled "you're".

 

I don't think you are a racist. But somehow you sound like an extreme communist to me. Because your behaviour and words were just too familiar to me, according to history books. Man, you missed the golden age for you. You could have played a major role behind any iron curtain.

 

Then why aren't they prisoners of war?

I've already provided the quotes from you that show that. Your denial now, without taking back what you said then, doesn't lend credence to your claim.

Yes you say you used Arabs because that is the group of people being discussed, but refused to provide an example of a time when you used 'whites' when talking about a group. It appears that you have two different sets of standards. That is racism.

 

Nobody has seized on this in 4 pages of hot air.

 

Because for some of us the argument supports our contention. For others it clearly is blow against their argument. There isn't a way for them to refute it, so apparently they pretend it never existed.

 

What is the difference between a communist and Facist?

 

You most certainly have not proved that I am racist. I can't believe I have to rehash this with you. You obviously don't listen to a word I write, and choose to interpret it the way you want to hear, then repeat back to me what I meant. What a joke. I would take action because they were congregating by the bathroom, AS I SAID. The story was about arabs, so I said if I saw a group of arabs congregating by the bathroom (which was what happened), I would take action. THAT'S IT. WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR YOU TO PUT THROUGH YOUR BRAIN? Quit slandering me.