Fake Menstrual Blood Used Among Guantanamo Interrogation Techniques

You're too lazy to read the posts, so you make everybody re-answer all these questions that have been addressed already? Um, ok.

 

I gave up long time ago. Even people pointed out those were not "enemy combatants" at least 5, 6 times already, and pointed out half of those prisoner were let go free because of innocense, he just conveniently ignored it, and kept ranting about how he didn't mind to treat those enemies as they were treated. When I pointed out his flaw by giving him analogies, he accused me of "insinuating racise motive" and played the race card. I admit, I don't know what to do in a debate or discussion, when your opponents just avoid your questions or ignoring own logic flaws, just keep repeating themselves. Maybe just give up.

I still remember, when the footage of American soldiers dead bodies and POWs' faces were shown on TV, everyone is outraged by that "insensitivity" or "cruelness". But now, people are making fun of "using prisoners' religious belives to humilate them as interrogating tactics." It's just beyond me. I guess self-centered perception is just at all time high.

 

I thought in the United States of America, you are innocent untill proven guilty. Or 911 just changed everything, people think everything happened behind those "iron curtains" weren't that bad? You only need to say that someone is under suspision in networking with possible "terrorism", everything is just fine. On top of that, you even have the strongest argument that they were let go on the end, which means everything is justified. Not to mention, those guys were put into prison wrongfully in the beginning. Hey, what's the harm? We cleared your name, now you are free, what else do you expect? Those tactics? what? We show you some hot dances, I would not mind. Religious belives? Who cares, it's not mine. Why should I mind? Remember, we are doing everything in the name of National Security, the interest of People, Freedom, and Democracy. How convenient.

 

I never saw a direct answer. Do you have one?

 

Actually, i would say that what's being done may be technically legitimate. And that's far from perfect. See, that's the problem. Neither the standards for prisoners of war, nor the standards for civilians applies. And that' wrong.

Coercing information isn't anything new. I have no idea as to what's appropriate. In my experience, you share a bottle of rum, and everything flows from there. But this is different. So the 'regular' standards of the courtroom may not apply. No innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I suppose I'm OK with that...to some degree. But there have to be standards. And by playing with definitions, those standards have been conveniently sidestepped.

This isn't the first time a government has required information through 'interrogation.' So, although civilian standards may not apply...other standards should. Which is why conventions and resolutions have been agreed to. Otherwise we should be OK with whatever interrogation methods other nations apply to US citizens as long as they deem them in their best interests.

 

Milk and cookies! Duh!

 

I thought you joined the military to fight the War on Terror Back already ?

 

i hate the nra but at least they stand up for what they believe to be their constitutionally protected right. if only there were groups that strong and that vocal about other aspects of the constitution.

and yes when you start restricting the constitution to only apply here and here. when you start redefining international treaties to only apply here and here. when you start playing with semantics on such gravely important issues. that is a travesty. and yes i realize this has happened before. but not when i was around.

 

Well for one thing it isn't the American way. The declaration says that Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness were endowed to ALL MEN, by their creator. It didn't say to American citizens or agents of other states.

If one truly believes in the Declaration of Independence then we should do everything we could to make sure that we don't lock up innocents. Whether they were later let go, doesn't justify what happened to them, especially in cases where they were subjected to torture. I don't mean red marker torture, I mean being sent to Syria for real old fashioned torture.

There are provisions for how to treat POW's, and there is a criminal justice system which locked up and imprisoned the folks responsible for the first WTC bombing. It worked then, I don't see why it can't work now.

 

That's pretty much present day America. We are never wrong and the and free of consequences!

 

You apparently have never heard the saying "You attract more flis with honey than vinegar."

The best interrogators have been ones who have been able to win over their subjects rather than torture them.

 

They are distinct classifications... not in my opinion.

 

I'm sure we'll be able to just charm the info out of the al Queda operatives. It isn't like they hate America and have no qualms about killing thousands of innocent people.

 

But here you're mixing the ends with the means. Our goal is to defeat A Qaeda and to the do that we need good intelligence not torture them because they have no qualms about killing thousands of people.

Torture hasn't been consitently shown to be produce reliable intelligence since the one being tortured will end up tailoring their answers to the torturer just to get the torture to stop even if it wasn't true.

During WW2 the best German interrogator figured out that if you treat someone decently, kindly and even give them the impression that you respect them you actually get better intelligence. This works because for one the enemy is brainwashed into believing that their oponents will be cruel so when they aren't treated cruelly that's a profound challenge to their preconcieved notions. At that point ever other notion even loyalty to their cause is in question. Next by human nature we inherently reciprocate kindness with kindness and it becomes difficult to hang onto hate when who you've been taught to hate is actually being kind.

OTOH hand by torturing them we only feed into their preconceived notions and in most ways a combatant is more prepared for cruelty than kindness since that's what they've been told and trained under.

 

How would they treat an American that falls into their hands? I think they would treat him or her a hell of alot worse than we are treating them in Gitmo.

What happened to Daniel Pearl, Matthew Maupin, Nick Berg, and countless others?

I have absolutely no problem with any interrogation techniques the U.S military uses on these savages.

 

Savage is a loaded word. Please take care when using it. I understand you may have meant it to refer to terrorists in particular (and not all people of Muslim cultural descent), but here it is ambiguous who the "savages" are supposed to be. For centuries, Europeans have used that term to describe all non-caucasian races, particularly those that don't ascribe to the same faith. You don't want anyone getting the wrong idea.

 

You're exactly right waran007. That's exactly how I meant it. That was a good thing to point out considering the nature of the people here in D&D.

My personal opinion though is that if there's anybody out there that would superimpose a racist or religious discriminatory context to it then they're just ignorant.

 

Damn, I'm hungry for Tomato Soup for some reason...