20th Terrorist Interrogation

[Ixion]

I just read a story from MSNBC about the inspector general's report issued concerning interrogation methods of prisoners from Iraq and Afghanistan. Listed are many methods that were used, most of which are designed to intimidate or embarrass the detainee in order to obtain information. The full story is here:
20th Terrorist

Why do I bring this up? Well I read the story, and I was a little put-off by the comments from the readers of the story. Some of them include:

Civilians will never understand the extent the military goes to protect them. They prefer instead to criticize and complain about how the freedom they enjoy was granted to them. And that's their right. That's why we protect this country the way we do. That's what we protect.
Eternal Mercenary, Parker , Indiana (Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:03 PM)

If he is a terrorist he has no rights.
He took the rights away from the people he helped kill, and that should automatically take his away.
What he needs on top of the already supposed tortures is some Texas fire ants and 5 horses tied to his appendiges and shoot a shot gun off.
These people have been trying to scare us and it is taking a mental strain on this country and some of us are tired of it and feel a little old time justice is deserved.
Ken Jackson Kent, Wa. (Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:14 PM)

My question is: At what point do humans lose their rights? Who has the power to decide what rights a human being has? I understand he was part of a large organization who uses fear to control people, mostly through surprise violent attacks which lead to numerous deaths. I just wonder how much information they have gotten out of him. I am also aware that the U.S. does not torture their prisoners as much as many other countries do. Thinking about Vietnam and the torture that those POWs went through there (McCain for example) and I wonder if they think that since tremendous torture was used on them, it should be used on our prisoners, or if there is another way. I don't pretend to know the answers, and I am not delusional about who the terrorists are and what their intentions are. Am I just being too much of an idealist?

 

[Darth Rotor]

At what point do humans lose their rights?

When they stop fighting for them.

 

[Oliver]

No one has Human Rights if Terrorstates don't care about those things.

I guess we're talking about the Detainee 063 case here, aren't we? :
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05092008/watch2.html

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Never. No one ever loses their rights. They can have them curtailed by the State if the State deems that they are a threat to others and themselves; I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the basis for a judicial system is something like that. If someone really has conspired to commit mass murder (a terrorist) then that person should be treated like a criminal, not a subhuman creature devoid of all rights. Mistreating prisoners only hurts us.

I've quoted him before, but retired Lt. Col. David Grossman in his book, "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" devotes a whole chapter to torture and the treatment of prisoners, and he repeats what he says he said to the classes he taught at West Point, "Torture is treason." Torturing prisoners makes people less likely to surrender to you, and therefore costs both enemy and American lives in the long run. Treating other people well saves lives on all sides. It shortens battles and wins wars. We treated German prisoners in WWI so well that the reputation we gained helped shorten the Battle of the Bulge, and it helped end the Second World War more swiftly, with fewer casualties. Being decent and ethical is an investment, barbarism is a debt that can never be paid.

 

[BeAChooser]

One man's torture is another man's music ... or religion.

 

[Ixion]

Never. No one ever loses their rights. They can have them curtailed by the State if the State deems that they are a threat to others and themselves; I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the basis for a judicial system is something like that. If someone really has conspired to commit mass murder (a terrorist) then that person should be treated like a criminal, not a subhuman creature devoid of all rights. Mistreating prisoners only hurts us.

I've quoted him before, but retired Lt. Col. David Grossman in his book, "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" devotes a whole chapter to torture and the treatment of prisoners, and he repeats what he says he said to the classes he taught at West Point, "Torture is treason." Torturing prisoners makes people less likely to surrender to you, and therefore costs both enemy and American lives in the long run. Treating other people well saves lives on all sides. It shortens battles and wins wars. We treated German prisoners in WWI so well that the reputation we gained helped shorten the Battle of the Bulge, and it helped end the Second World War more swiftly, with fewer casualties. Being decent and ethical is an investment, barbarism is a debt that can never be paid.

Interesting point. I will have to check this book out.

 

[Mycroft]

Civilians will never understand the extent the military goes to protect them. They prefer instead to criticize and complain about how the freedom they enjoy was granted to them. And that's their right. That's why we protect this country the way we do. That's what we protect.
Eternal Mercenary, Parker , Indiana (Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:03 PM)

"Eternal Mercenary" sounds like something that comes from either a book or a game. Either way, not something to be taken seriously.

 

[Ziggurat]

Never. No one ever loses their rights. They can have them curtailed by the State if the State deems that they are a threat to others and themselves; I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the basis for a judicial system is something like that.

No, actually, it isn't. Our legal system uses punitive deprivation of rights as well as preventative deprivation of rights for the guilty.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

No, actually, it isn't. Our legal system uses punitive deprivation of rights as well as preventative deprivation of rights for the guilty.

How is that appreciably different from what I said? A convicted criminal has their rights curtailed, but that that doesn't mean we can treat them like subhumans.

 

[Ziggurat]

How is that appreciably different from what I said?

Because it isn't simply about future threats they may pose. A court could know with absolute certainty that someone would never pose any future threat of any crime whatsoever, and stil sentence them to prison as a punitive measure. So your claim that we only remove rights to prevent future threats is wrong: we do it to punish past crimes as well. In fact, there's generally a much higher standard for removing rights based on future threats (see, for example, prior restraint of speech) than for punishing what's already been done.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Because it isn't simply about future threats they may pose. A court could know with absolute certainty that someone would never pose any future threat of any crime whatsoever, and stil sentence them to prison as a punitive measure. So your claim that we only remove rights to prevent future threats is wrong: we do it to punish past crimes as well. In fact, there's generally a much higher standard for removing rights based on future threats (see, for example, prior restraint of speech) than for punishing what's already been done.

I don't think you read what I said.

 

[JoeEllison]

There's something seriously broken in people who advocate torture. They are, in their way, as sick as any terrorist, and I am sickened by the knowledge of their existence in my country.

 

[TruthByDecree]

I don't even thing most of these people were really tortured for interrogation purposes. They were tortured because someone was getting off on it.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

There's something seriously broken in people who advocate torture. They are, in their way, as sick as any terrorist, and I am sickened by the knowledge of their existence in my country.

If only the US military and CIA had the guts to stand up against torture instead of carrying it out, promoting or aiding and abetting it.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think you read what I said.

You said, "They can have them [rights] curtailed by the State if the State deems that they are a threat to others and themselves; I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the basis for a judicial system is something like that."
But our legal system is primarily punative, not preventative. When you break the law, you are generally punished for PAST transgressions, not future threats. Yes, there are some laws which deal with future threats (conspiracy to commit murder, that sort of thing), but that's not what most cases are about, and the state does not need to demonstrate ANY future threat in order to remove rights punitively for past actions.

 

[Ixion]

There's something seriously broken in people who advocate torture. They are, in their way, as sick as any terrorist, and I am sickened by the knowledge of their existence in my country.

That's what I was thinking...