Soldier Beaten Down, Discharged

[Bjorn]

That depends on the circumstances. What was gained by isolating the prisoner? We don't know.

We know a couple of things:

It prevented e.g. the Red Cross from checking the conditions he was held in and the treatment he got.

It allowed us (if we wanted to, of course) to treat him in a way that would be against laws and conventions we have not only signed, but in some cases taken the initiative to. Hell, we used to be one of the countries fighting for human rights as defined in those laws.

As opposed to you (?) I don't think there is any excuse for isolating him from the Red Cross and other humanitary organizations - even if we gained something doing so. The North Vietnamese guy who tortured your brother might also have gained some information from it.

 

[Rob Lister]

We know a couple of things:

It prevented e.g. the Red Cross from checking the conditions he was held in and the treatment he got.

It allowed us (if we wanted to, of course) to treat him in a way that would be against laws and conventions we have not only signed, but in some cases taken the initiative to. Hell, we used to be one of the countries fighting for human rights as defined in those laws.

As opposed to you (?) I don't think there is any excuse for isolating him from the Red Cross and other humanitary organizations - even if we gained something doing so. The North Vietnamese guy who tortured your brother might also have gained some information from it.

I don't know if there was a reason for isolating him or not. There probably was or they wouldn't have done it. Would you, under ANY circumstances, admit that the isolation was warranted? I would. They were probably trying to get information out of him.

Was he in uniform when caught? I think NOT. What does the GC have to say about that?

 

[evildave]

I'll be darned. I'd never looked up Coarsegold; thought it was Australian & you were AUP's twin. Califunia nutcases are apparently similar.

An image I see is the live feed of plane 2 hitting the second tower while reruns of plane 1 were on. Then reports of the pentagon strike, and 93 on the ground.

Do you live near any strategic targets in Coarsegold? Three-Mile Island might have been the target instead of just the White House or Capital Building. And you are afraid of our government!

You guys haven't even received a few anthrax envelopes. Maybe next time it'll be a cropduster load? Or how about an LPG supertanker in New York harbor? Or San Francisco?

On the current story that has your panties in a wad, you, or I, will never know The Truth about the matter.

Coarsegold is 40 miles north of Fresno. Approximately an equidistant drive to that or Yosemite.

Anthrax killed, what? Four or five people. The WTC and pentagon attacks killed a thousand times as many.

Cars have killed ten times even that many every single year for decades. Realistically, a car is about a million times more likely to kill me. Only ten times more likely, if terrorists pull off a multi-thousand "grand slam" every year from now on. Of course, living where I do, the chances are infinitessimally lower, especially compared to traffic safety, which is, as a matter of fact, my metric for what 'safety' is. It's a very realistic metric, in that pretty much all of us face that risk every single day. Since we've gone about three years without another "big" attack, that makes traffic 30 more of a threat (so far), disregarding all the previous years of traffic fatalities. That's before you consider the millions every year who are hospitalized or maimed by traffic in the U.S. alone. Around the world, the number of motor vehicle deaths is staggering.

Yes, the terrorists may eventually get lucky again. They will get 'lucky' whether you have your every communication and movement monitored, and police patrolling with machine guns ready to torture and/or kill you for the tiniest infraction, or... if you have your privacy and civil rights and due process intact.

I'd rather keep the due process no matter how many cowards would prefer to live imprisoned in an police state. But that's just me.

More on death and injury statistics:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/

 

[Rob Lister]

I'd rather keep the due process no matter how many cowards would prefer to live imprisoned in an police state. But that's just me.

That's a valid opinion, even if somewhat emotionally stated. I'm of the opinion that the measures being taken are about right given the circumstances. The problem is, not everyone is as brave as you. I do find it odd that you can so easily shoo aside the deaths of some 5000 people here and yet be so horrified at the fraction of that number who were wrongfully abused.

Still, that's just you.

 

[Bjorn]

I don't know if there was a reason for isolating him or not. There probably was or they wouldn't have done it.

Given the latest development, torture comes to mind.

Would you, under ANY circumstances, admit that the isolation was warranted? I would.

That's great. However, you would disagree with some high ranking officials about it (NY Times):

Daniel J. Dell'Orto, the Pentagon's principal deputy general counsel:

"We should have registered him much sooner than we did. It didn't have to be at the very instant we brought him into our custody. And that's something that we'll just have to examine as to whether there was a breakdown in the quickness with which we registered him."

They were probably trying to get information out of him.

Oh ... and they couldn't do that 'properly' if the Red Cross had access to him? Why?

Was he in uniform when caught? I think NOT. What does the GC have to say about that?

Please check what the UN convention against torture says:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

It isn't even about POWs or not POWs, it is about torture, final.

Yes, you might kill a 'spy', especially after trying him, but we have agreed not to torture. Anyone.

 

[shemp]

You make my point for me. How many fair and speedy trials did the Japanese-Americans get in during WWII? If today was then, all Arab-American's might well be locked up as well. Cruel and unusual punishment for whom? After WWII, during the occupation of Germany, f you were caught out of uniform and even suspected of being a spy, you were shot. Well, actually they gave you a real dang quick and speedy trial and then shot you. If today was then, there would be no 'prison scandal' because there very few of the prisoners in question ever wore a uniform. The war on drugs is indeed an excellent example but it started will before Bush took office.

Edit to fix my spelling errors: too many, just do your best to figure it out.

The only difference between then and now is that we have a much more open and free press than we did then. The media don't have a nudge-nudge-wink-wink relationship with the governemnt like they used to. They dig deeper for news, and they aren't going to cover it up just because some government flack says it would be good for "national security."

And the public isn't as trusting of our government as they were then. You can thank Vietnam and Watergate for that.

I'm glad of it. Despite what we go through, this is a better country and a better world than it was then. I wouldn't want to go back and live in the dark like that.

 

[Rob Lister]

I'm glad of it. Despite what we go through, this is a better country and a better world than it was then. I wouldn't want to go back and live in the dark like that.

We agree. But those that pine for 'the good ol' days when men were men and the women were regularly beaten' may not.

 

[Rob Lister]

Given the latest development, torture comes to mind.

That's great. However, you would disagree with some high ranking officials about it (NY Times):

****** I might. It depends on the actual circumstances.

Oh ... and they couldn't do that 'properly' if the Red Cross had access to him? Why?

****** I don't know why. I suspect it was part of the interrogation process.

Please check what the UN convention against torture says:

****** Are you now suggesting he was tortured?

It isn't even about POWs or not POWs, it is about torture, final.

****** Is all interrogation torture? Is torture ever justified in your view? Forget the GC for a moment and think about it. Ever? For any reason?

Yes, you might kill a 'spy', especially after trying him, but we have agreed not to torture. Anyone.

ESPECIALLY after trying him?

 

[Bjorn]

ESPECIALLY after trying him?

Clever snipping. But yes, I think it's worth the time to find out if he's a spy or a farmer before he's shot. That's not relevant to the discussion, however, since we know nothing about the circumstances of the arrest, if he was armed, if he was spying .... and we didn't kill him.

My point was and is: We have agreed that we cannot torture. Anyone. Spy or not.

Do you agree?

 

[Rob Lister]

Clever snipping. But yes, I think it's worth the time to find out if he's a spy or a farmer before he's shot. That's not relevant to the discussion, however, since we know nothing about the circumstances of the arrest, if he was armed, if he was spying .... and we didn't kill him.

My point was and is: We have agreed that we cannot torture. Anyone. Spy or not.

Do you agree?

Your question implies facts not in evidence because I've heard no report that the prisoner in question was tortured.

Still, I do NOT agree.

My question to you remains. Are there ANY circumstances under which you would agree that torture was the justified? Any at all? Be careful here because I could easily give you one that would make your denial look more than foolish.

 

[Bjorn]

Your question implies facts not in evidence because I've heard no report that the prisoner in question was tortured.

No evidence, I agree. But it leaves the question from a few posts ago - why the need to keep him (and several others that we know about so far) in hiding from the Red Cross.

Still, I do NOT agree.

Since you have to agree that we have signed a UN convention that doesn't allow torture under any circumstances, I take this to mean that you would allow torture sometimes. Or can imagine circumstances when you would.

We now have some people in capture, maybe some of them with information that we would appreciate. Are these among those who you would torture to get some information out? Much like, say, POW's in former wars, in Europe or Asia.

Obviously, you wouldn't have signed up on the convention saying:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

I can only say I find them wiser than you.

My question to you remains. Are there ANY circumstances under which you would agree that torture was the justified? Any at all? Be careful here because I could easily give you one that would make your denial look more than foolish.

Sure - we just had 133 posts in this thread about it:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41283&highlight=torture+ever+justified

Please read it if you intend to come up with examples you find to the point - we might have seen them before.

 

[American]

It makes me absolutely sick to be an American these days.

Good. Get out. It was never your country anyway.


Better yet, go to a protest and burn the flag. That should make you look really good, compared to patriots.


Pansie.

 

[Bjorn]

Re: Re: Soldier Beaten Down, Discharged

Better yet, go to a protest ....

You know what, "American"? I'm quite new here, but I thought this was one of the things the US was all about: The right to protest, to argue against authorities, to oppose the majority. Weren't the founding fathers examples of such a will to protest? Am I wrong?

Some people here on the board have even been arguing that one of the reasons why the right to bear arms is so important, is to be able to defend the people from the government, should need arise. Do you think people with such views are anti-american? Should they leave?

Why do I bother ....

 

[Rob Lister]

No evidence, I agree. But it leaves the question from a few posts ago - why the need to keep him (and several others that we know about so far) in hiding from the Red Cross.

Since you have to agree that we have signed a UN convention that doesn't allow torture under any circumstances, I take this to mean that you would allow torture sometimes. Or can imagine circumstances when you would.

We now have some people in capture, maybe some of them with information that we would appreciate. Are these among those who you would torture to get some information out? Much like, say, POW's in former wars, in Europe or Asia.

Obviously, you wouldn't have signed up on the convention saying:

I can only say I find them wiser than you.

Sure - we just had 133 posts in this thread about it:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41283&highlight=torture+ever+justified

Please read it if you intend to come up with examples you find to the point - we might have seen them before.

Thanks for the link. I wish I had it previously. In that link you said:

Marian's post above pretty much explains my POV. I'm not saying that I, personally, cannot see situations where I would do disgusting things - but I cannot see how that makes such disgusting acts more legal, or morally acceptable.

My soon-to-be friend, your position is showing. So after you perform these justified, yet somehow immoral acts of torture, what punishment would you expect?

 

[evildave]

That's a valid opinion, even if somewhat emotionally stated. I'm of the opinion that the measures being taken are about right given the circumstances. The problem is, not everyone is as brave as you. I do find it odd that you can so easily shoo aside the deaths of some 5000 people here and yet be so horrified at the fraction of that number who were wrongfully abused.

Still, that's just you.

Well, we have the difference between terrorist anarchy, tyrants and government to thank for that.

You see, I have higher expectations for an established national government that claims to be based on high ideals.

One would expect terrorists to torture, kill, etc. in any way that they can.

I do not well tolerate a government that is allegedly accountable to its people to behave just like common terrorist, thugs and tyrants that it alleges it's overthrowing.

I know, you probably think it's only fair to measure the government up against terrorists and expect the same from both, but I don't. One of my little 'quirks', to be sure.

Good. Get out. It was never your country anyway.

Better yet, go to a protest and burn the flag. That should make you look really good, compared to patriots.

Pansie.

Not even when I overthrew communism in my five year career in the USAF? Or went to the Persian Gulf for all those years leading up to the first war? My Expeditionary and Air Medal badges probably mean nothing to you, either.

Of course, where the government's behavior sickens me to be an American, your sort of behavior only makes me embarrased for America. Weren't there already examples of 'Nationalism' at all costs?

Anyway, I might move to another country, but the locals would probably think I was like you, and who wants that sort of person as a neighbor?

 

[Bjorn]

Thanks for the link. I wish I had it previously.

You're welcome.

Marian's post above pretty much explains my POV. I'm not saying that I, personally, cannot see situations where I would do disgusting things - but I cannot see how that makes such disgusting acts more legal, or morally acceptable.

My soon-to-be friend, your position is showing. So after you perform these justified, yet somehow immoral acts of torture, what punishment would you expect?

I didn't say they were justified, I said I could understand people doing illegal things. I would accept the punishment given to me by the law and the jury.

And don't forget that the quote was me agreeing to this statement:

Which is exactly why we don't allow people who have that emotional connection to be the ones making the decision.

I can, sometimes, understand why people in certain positions do things that are illegal. Someone in handcuffs spits on the officer, the officer beats him up. It shouldn't happen, and police officers are punished for such acts.

But I don't expect the chief of police to tell his officers to do such things. I expect him to punish those who do.

Ordering legal advice on how far you can take pain before it is called torture, or how torture can be justified because the president is ordering it, or hiding people (again: why?) from the international organizations that we have agreed to let check on their conditions, is the most un-American attitude I've seen in my life.

 

[Blue Monk]

Yeah, if I lived in Austin, I would feel the same, maybe? Actually, no, I wouldn't.

Brushing on your arabic? How is the conversion going? What do the females you know think about the veils & floor-length garb?

As to hiding in the USA, I prefer fighting on foreign soil, by US military trained & paid to do so. It's called "national security" and it's the one thing I expect my government to provide; ask your parents: they might know what that means. If that doesn't work, try grandpa & grandma.

ROFLMAO!!

Are you trying to be funny? How do you expect me to take you seriously when you seem to think my place of residence is of some significance. I wasn’t born here you know? Must be something in the water.

Yeah I’ve talked to the Parents and the Grandparents and surprisingly enough I was astonished to learn that they didn’t trash the Constitution the first time they got scared.

Gee, if Hilary were elected President I wonder whom she would deem ‘enemy combatants?’

People who throw away their civil liberties from fear of immediate threats are short-sighted fools. There’s some but little historical evidence for this as we’ve been about the only ones who have remained free in the face of adversity. At least until now.

We survived one of the bloodiest civil wars in history and we will survive this. Let’s not lose our heads and let the terrorists take from us the basic principles that made us great in the first place.

 

[evildave]

More news hits...

http://news.google.com/news?num=30&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&q="Sean+Baker"&btnG=Search+News

Army confirms investigation into beating of American soldier
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/8924648.htm

Meanwhile, a spokesman for the U.S. Southern Command in Miami said Tuesday that the training session at which Baker was injured was videotaped, but that the tape has likely since been taped over.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/8927648.htm?1c

The U.S. Army confirmed the incident, but played down the extent of his injuries and said that other factors, along with the head injury, contributed to his discharge.

For the past few weeks, Simpson has tried to obtain all of Baker's medical records and any documents related to the case, including a videotape of the incident he says cannot be found.

It was standard practice to videotape military guards who entered cells to subdue and remove uncooperative prisoners. The night of his beating, a sergeant in Baker's unit tried to obtain the tape, but later told Baker the footage couldn't be found, Baker said last month.

http://ktla.trb.com/news/nationworl...r16jun16-lat,0,5628362.story?coll=ktla-news-1

Honorably discharged with a medical retirement in April, Baker spends dreary days inside a nondescript duplex in central Kentucky, unable to work because of what he says are seizures caused by the beating. He is taking nine prescription medications for seizures and headaches, his lawyer said. He has yet to receive disability payments promised by the military.

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/nation/8773855.htm
Of course, a little bit of slander never hurt. Let's dig out his traffic history, and his various infractions because it's much more important to focus on that than the fact that he was beaten, strangled and had his head bashed repeatedly on a steel floor for a training exercise focused on how to treat prisoners, and oh, he has seizures now and the government isn't paying his disability, which is all he wanted in the first place.

 

[evildave]

*Bump*

 

[hammegk]

ROFLMAO!!

Glad to be of service, dolt.

Are you trying to be funny? How do you expect me to take you seriously when you seem to think my place of residence is of some significance. I wasn’t born here you know? Must be something in the water.

Huh? What are you babbling about?

Yeah I’ve talked to the Parents and the Grandparents and surprisingly enough I was astonished to learn that they didn’t trash the Constitution the first time they got scared.

Well, I'd agree the US Judiciary has been doing the job singlehandedly, but that probably isn't what you meant.

Gee, if Hilary were elected President I wonder whom she would deem ‘enemy combatants?’

Well, not Vince Foster anyway.

People who throw away their civil liberties from fear of immediate threats are short-sighted fools. There’s some but little historical evidence for this as we’ve been about the only ones who have remained free in the face of adversity. At least until now.

I'll bite; which civil liberties have been lost? Which loss has effected you the most? Other than giving you a wedgie I mean.

We survived one of the bloodiest civil wars in history and we will survive this. Let’s not lose our heads and let the terrorists take from us the basic principles that made us great in the first place.

Ed only knows what that diatribe adds to the discussion.