Thursday, 19 May 2005 - 11:56 AM EDT

"Personally, I was pretty surprised that people thought this issue was worth rioting over and, worse, worth dying over."

Hmm, i think that you need to start listening instead of pontificating. No one in the conversation supported the rioters. All we were saying is that religious beliefs should not be employed during interogations. Why? Well for one it doesn't help. And two it propagates this idea held by many in the middle east of religious warfare. It's ideotic that America goes to some foreign land with the mantra of liberty and freedom of religion and then commits religious disrespect (if indeed they did). And is it wise to break the Geneva Convensions? and then cry foul when others do so?
Your statements can be described with one word: HUBRIS.

"My feelings are that the reality of an interrogation is that a person has to use whatever psychological tools available to break down a suspects defenses and get at the truth."

Well then you watch too many spy movies. Go read up on why "breaking down" suspects doesn't work. You can make anyone confess to any crime given enough time.

http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archives/030128_confess/main.html
http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/falseconfessions.php

Thursday, 19 May 2005 - 3:42 PM EDT

This is a fairly typical response from peacenik hippie canadians. This was a STUPID reason to die. That may be hubris to some but my honest opinion to others. Interrogation and torture are completely different issues. People confess to crimes all the time. This is usually done because of guilt and regret, feelings that are often instilled by the interrogators. None of this is against Geneva conventions. Abu Ghraib was against Geneva conventions, no question. That was torture. The commenter obviously missed the point when I said psychological. Our, yes might as well include all of North America, administration is full of idealogical idiots, no question, but to extend this to every possible part of the 'War On Terror' is being a namby pamby pathetic excuse for a bomb target..I digress. Finally, these interrogations, as far as I can tell, aren't about confessions, they are about getting information, and, as every cop can tell you, in every lie there is usually some grain of truth. Am I glad people have to do this kind of crap, no. But I'm also not glad that anyone is in prison, still, that is the world we live in.

Oh yeah, didn't get this point:

"And is it wise to break the Geneva Convensions? and then cry foul when others do so?"

Who is crying foul?

Saturday, 21 May 2005 - 10:03 AM EDT

Well, you remember when American troops were captured and our opponents posted their pictures on TV? We bitterly complained that they violated the Geneva Conventions by doing that. That wasn't so long ago. We were definitely crying foul.

Saturday, 21 May 2005 - 10:44 AM EDT

You basically advocate "to hell with the Geneva Convention" and by doing so cross the line. If America crosses the line then why should others respect the rules of POW treatement.

From the Geneva Conventions (http://www.genevaconventions.org/):

"Prisoners of war must be humanely treated at all times. Any unlawful act which causes death or seriously endangers the health of a prisoner of war is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. In particular, prisoners must not be subject to physical mutilation>, biological experiments, violence, intimidation, insults, and public curiosity. (Convention III, Art. 13)"

"Prisoners of war must receive due process and fair trials. (Convention III, Art. 82 through Art. 88)"

"Collective punishment for individual acts, corporal punishment, imprisonment without daylight, and all forms of torture and cruelty are forbidden. (Convention III, Art. 87)"

And directly quoting the Convention itself:

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

So if the US says FU to the Geneva Conventions, that's basically throwing the rule book out the window.

What you don't get Bil (and you are a smart guy) is that this is a war not just of fists but a war of ideas. We're fighting FOR A WORLD THAT RESPECTS RULES - if you throw the rule book out the window - WE ALL LOSE AND THE NUT CASES WIN. When you say "I don't care about what they think" they will say "Well I don't care about you either" and then they march around with their Osama posters. AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT OSAMA WANTS.

So because of these acts the world will become worse.

Saturday, 21 May 2005 - 11:04 AM EDT

And one more thing. You say:

"The commenter obviously missed the point when I said psychological."

No you miss the point.

MENTAL TORTURE, and other forms of psychological mistreatment, are banned by the Geneva Conventions.

Sunday, 22 May 2005 - 12:32 AM EDT

Feel free to make all of your attacks personal, makes it more interesting. You are right, I did say FU to the Geneva convention. Fuck that shit. There, are you happy, you have gotten me to admit that I hate all of the bastards out there and they all should die horrible deaths.

Okay, now for some serious debate. There is no clear indication what is going on in Gitmo or what rules apply there. The prisoners seem to want to be tried in criminal courts and in that case those laws apply. YOU, galafinakis, seem to think that we should never try to get information from any prisoner ever. Well, I'm glad there are people out there who live in precious little bubbles where everyone is sweet and nice and no one is trying to kill us americans by the thousands. I won't go into it but these prisoners have given us boatloads of information. This is WAR. Not of my choosing of course, but we can go back now. Well, actually, you can go back to canada if you want.