It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Torture (warning, graphic)

page: 15
24
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


No I think not attacking, invading and occupying other peoples countries for years on end is what will stop US troops from being tortured and killed.




posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
No I think not attacking, invading and occupying other peoples countries for years on end is what will stop US troops from being tortured and killed.


And what about the Coalition aircrew that were tortured during the First Gulf War? The "funny" thing is that took place at Abu Ghraib, too.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65


What about them? How does this relate to this discussion? What point are you trying to make?


[edit on 29-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by jerico65


What about them? How does this relate to this discussion? What point are you trying to make?


I don't know; how about that there isn't a single country out there that has clean hands when it comes to torture during wartime. How about when it comes to US forces captured while fighting in the middle east seem to have always had a high risk of torture at the hands of the enemy.

These, and other facts, seem to have been forgotten after the Abu Ghraib pictures surfaced and the torture memos were released.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Some of the people that are being tortured or that end up in camps like these probably did something wrong, but I'm 100% sure that there are also a lot of people (terrorists mainly) that didn't do anything wrong,
but were a 'suspect' which were tortured in admitting the acts.
If I was arrested one day and I knew nothing about it and was tortured like this, it doesn't take much to admit a crime and go to a normal jail.. or even the death penalty if these tortures were inhuman.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


It's not forgotten, it just isn't relevant. The US should do the legal and moral thing, because it's the legal and moral thing to do. Otherwise it becomes a hypocrite with no credibility. Which is exactly what it became. Hopefully that can be changed, but it's actions during these wars of aggression have stained America's name badly, and it will take a lot of time and effort to rectify that. What a disaster.


[edit on 29-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
It's not forgotten, it just isn't relevant.


Well, that explains it!! US troops that are tortured isn't relevant. OK, we cleared that up. And anything that might have been done to them in the past doesn't matter, either. All that matters are these pictures that someone was so kind to post here.


Originally posted by Malcram
The US should do the legal and moral thing, because it's the legal and moral thing to do. Otherwise it becomes a hypocrite with no credibility. Which is exactly what it became. Hopefully that can be changed, but it's actions during these wars of aggression have stained America's name badly, and it will take a lot of time and effort to rectify that. What a disaster.


So any country that has tortured prisoners in the past should be labeled a hypocrite if they even mention anything about human rights? China? Russia? North Korea? Japan? Germany?



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
reply to post by audas
 



Historically your are correct. Present day you are incorrect. Your assumption that our armed forces are a bunch of retarded, poverty stricken, high school drop outs is very insulting.


Well not to say that other guy was right and that all military people are stupid, but he does make a point. My daughter just took the ASFAB and found out that girls have to score 20 points higher than boys to pass. So you don't have to be stupid to get in the military, but you don't have to be as smart as a girl.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chillidog1
Well not to say that other guy was right and that all military people are stupid, but he does make a point. My daughter just took the ASFAB and found out that girls have to score 20 points higher than boys to pass. So you don't have to be stupid to get in the military, but you don't have to be as smart as a girl.


Nah, we just have to be smarter than John Kerry!!

Sorry, back on track!



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Very sad seeing those pictures, can't believe some of the things this country condones at this time in age. Especially after what our troops went through in the previous wars. That being said I am sure they did worse things. Hopefully none of those guys got the old glass rod up the shaft of the penis, then smashed with a hammer treatment(my recomendation what to do with convicted child molestars). Or the ripping of the finger nails off, or a desembolwment.... could go on and on lol sick mind.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Well, that explains it!! US troops that are tortured isn't relevant. OK, we cleared that up


No it isn't relevant to this discussion or the issue at hand.

When it happens it's a crime. When the US does such things, it is also a crime. The US is not absolved from it's crimes just because of the crimes of others, and so crimes against the US are irrelevant in a discussion about US war crimes. This is because most of society thankfully operates at a mental level beyond that of the playground where the infantile excuse "But he did it first!" simply doesn't work. Are you able to grasp that?


So any country that has tortured prisoners in the past should be labeled a hypocrite if they even mention anything about human rights? China? Russia? North Korea? Japan? Germany?


If their crimes of torture or other war crimes were recent or ongoing, as in the case of the US, then yes, that is the very definition of hypocrisy. But again, that is not the topic being discussed in this thread.

You need to get this false notion out of your mind that the actions of the US are somehow dependent on the actions of their enemies, as if, "if they do it, then it's OK for us to do it". Try that defense in court sometime, see how far it gets you. It will be dismissed because it is lawless and immature.

This is a thread about US war crimes. The crimes of others are not relevant.

As I said, the US should do the legal and moral thing because it is the legal and moral thing to do, regardless of what anyone else does. Otherwise it is a hypocrite and becomes a criminal, just like the enemies it condemns.

And tell me, when was the last US soldier tortured and killed on US soil?

As I recall the vast majority were tortured and killed while invading and occupying other people's countries right?

Maybe it's jut me but I see a quick and easy way to drastically reduce the number of US soldiers harmed. Can you guess what it might be?


[edit on 30-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
reply to post by audas
 



Historically your are correct. Present day you are incorrect. Your assumption that our armed forces are a bunch of retarded, poverty stricken, high school drop outs is very insulting.


Agreed....But this is what our collegate professors are churning out. This is why Obama wants to federalize education so he can indoctranate the whole country on our tax dollars....Hope and Change my a**! I think Obama was referring to Ward Chruchill and not Winsotn Churchill at last nights press conference.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
No it isn't relevant to this discussion or the issue at hand.

When it happens it's a crime. When the US does such things, it is also a crime. The US is not absolved from it's crimes just because of the crimes of others, and so crimes against the US are irrelevant in a discussion about US war crimes. This is because most of society thankfully operates at a mental level beyond that of the playground where the infantile excuse "But he did it first!" simply doesn't work. Are you able to grasp that?



Yes, it is. Torture is torture, no matter who is the victim or the person or government that's doing it. To completely group US troops that have been tortured as irrelevent is wrong.

Now, are you able to grasp that?


Originally posted by Malcram
If their crimes of torture or other war crimes were recent or ongoing, as in the case of the US, then yes, that is the very definition of hypocrisy. But again, that is not the topic being discussed in this thread.


OK, show me where there's a statue of limitations against torture? If that were the case, the US wouldn't be spending time and money getting former Nazi Concentration Camp guards deported.


Originally posted by Malcram
You need to get this false notion out of your mind that the actions of the US are somehow dependent on the actions of their enemies, as if, "if they do it, then it's OK for us to do it". Try that defense in court sometime, see how far it gets you. It will be dismissed because it is lawless and immature.


Funny, how much of an uproar is made when US troops were first tortured? Remember when the 507th Maintenance Company screwed up and got captured? During an interview, one of the troops started to mention being hit by his captors, but was told to stop because there was an ongoing investigation at that time. Of course, this probably wasn't discussed much on ATS. And this was before Abu Ghraib.


Originally posted by Malcram
This is a thread about US war crimes. The crimes of others are not relevant.


Yes, it is relevant. All are connected. You can't just deal with one without discussing the other. Well, unless you have a hate-on towards the US, then it's OK.



Originally posted by Malcram
As I said, the US should do the legal and moral thing because it is the legal and moral thing to do, regardless of what anyone else does. Otherwise it is a hypocrite and becomes a criminal, just like the enemies it condemns.


So, the US should do the "legal and moral thing", knowing full well that other countries aren't going to follow it, anyway? Not that I don't agree with that, but I wonder how many other signers of the GC have actually followed it?


Originally posted by Malcram
And tell me, when was the last US soldier tortured and killed on US soil?


Do you know? Last time I remembered, there hasn't been too many wars on US soil in recent memory.


Originally posted by Malcram
As I recall the vast majority were tortured and killed while invading and occupying other people's countries right?

Maybe it's jut me but I see a quick and easy way to drastically reduce the number of US soldiers harmed. Can you guess what it might be?


So, if that's the case, it's OK to ignore the Geneva Conventions and torture all you want, right?



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65



Yes, it is. Torture is torture, no matter who is the victim or the person or government that's doing it.


Great, we are agreed then. Torture is torture and torture is a crime and is illegal. Excellent. This thread is about torture carried out by US forces and agencies, NOT about torture OF American forces, which has happened and is, of course, terrible.


To completely group US troops that have been tortured as irrelevent is wrong.


It's irrelevant to this discussion because we aren't discussing US soldiers who have been tortured, again, because it isn't relevant to this discussion. No one denies US forces have been tortured, or that when it happens it's a crime, but that is not the topic being discussed. Seeing as you have such trouble understanding this, perhaps there is another way to demonstrate this to you: why do you think that US soldiers having been tortured relates to a discussion of torture carried out by US forces? Other than that both contain the word "torture", what is the relevance?


Yes, it is relevant. All are connected. You can't just deal with one without discussing the other. Well, unless you have a hate-on towards the US, then it's OK.


Then please tell me how it is relevant? You have claimed that it is, now demonstrate how it is.


[edit on 30-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by xetex
Some of the people that are being tortured or that end up in camps like these probably did something wrong, but I'm 100% sure that there are also a lot of people (terrorists mainly) that didn't do anything wrong,
but were a 'suspect' which were tortured in admitting the acts.
If I was arrested one day and I knew nothing about it and was tortured like this, it doesn't take much to admit a crime and go to a normal jail.. or even the death penalty if these tortures were inhuman.



I think you got it wrong….

They are not tortured/interrogated etc. to force them to admit to a crime/event/action, and also not to admit that they are a terrorist. They were already caught doing something to get to Getmo, so there is no reason to force them to admit to anything.

But what these people have is information and that is what we are after. That information is not some yes/no answer but detailed information about the organizations, people and future events of those groups.

Your views that they are tortured to admit to something is really not part of it.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


No, you got it wrong. Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? What you claimed above is completely, demonstrably, false. Do some research:




Ex-Bush Official: Many at Guantanamo Bay Are Innocent.

Former chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell says some have been there six or seven years and are innocent.

Many detainees locked up at Guantanamo were innocent men swept up by U.S. forces unable to distinguish enemies from noncombatants, a former Bush administration official said Thursday.

"There are still innocent people there," Lawrence B. Wilkerson, a Republican who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, told The Associated Press. "Some have been there six or seven years." (Read On)





Digging Into Guantanamo

And it gets worse. After all, if the Guantanamo prisoners had been captured on the battlefield, that would constitute prima facie evidence that they were enemy combatants even if the rest of the evidence against them was worthless or trumped up. But they weren't:

The largest single group at Guantanamo Bay today consists of men caught in indiscriminate sweeps for Arabs in Pakistan. Once arrested, these men passed through several captors before being given to the U.S. military. Some of the men say they were arrested after asking for help getting to their embassies; a few say the Pakistanis asked them for bribes to avoid being turned over to America.

...."The one thing we were never clear of was where they came from," [Michael] Scheuer said of the Guantanamo detainees. "DOD picked them up somewhere." When National Journal told Scheuer that the largest group came from Pakistani custody, he chuckled. "Then they were probably people the Pakistanis thought were dangerous to Pakistan," he said. "We absolutely got the wrong people."

That's Michael Scheuer speaking, the man who headed the CIA's bin Laden unit through 1999 and worked for the agency up through 2004.

To summarize then: According to the National Journal's research, upwards of half of all prisoners at Guantanamo weren't captured on the battlefield. Rather, they came into our custody by way of third parties "who had their own motivations for turning people in, including paybacks and payoffs." Many — perhaps most — of the men rounded up in these sweeps have no connection to al-Qaeda or the Taliban, and the evidence against them is often weak, sometimes nonexistent, and all too frequently known to be fabricated. And yet they remain in prison.


Empty Evidence

Guantanamo's Grip

Who Is At Guantanamo Bay?

No Explanation Or Timetable For Release Given

82 Inmates Cleared But Still Held At Guantanamo

I'd also like to quote a reader comment on one of the articles above regarding the injustices of Guantanamo, which I think is very apt and also applies to many of the replies I have seen in this thread:




"I'm just almost speechless at how terrible this is. Part of why it's not produced the outcry it should I think is that a lot of people find it hard to believe just how bad this situation is, how flimsy the evidence is, etc. They just interface it on a level of "well, harsh measures are needed" and "well, they're bad people or else they wouldn't be in there." It's a complete abdication of critical thought that's partially the fruit of the way the War On Terror was sold & poartially a defense mechanism to keep just how bad it is at bay."


Lies, avoidance and moral hypocrisy in NOT the same as true Patriotism. I think many have forgotten that. Defending America sometimes means exposing those who bring shame on America's name with their immoral and criminal actions, no matter what office they hold.

[edit on 30-4-2009 by Malcram]

[edit on 30-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
Great, we are agreed then. Torture is torture and torture is a crime and is illegal. Excellent. This thread is about torture carried out by US forces and agencies, NOT about torture OF American forces, which has happened and is, of course, terrible.

It's irrelevant to this discussion because we aren't discussing US soldiers who have been tortured, again, because it isn't relevant to this discussion. No one denies US forcers have been tortured, or that when it happens it's a crime, but that is not the topic being discussed. Seeing as you have such trouble understanding this, perhaps there is another way to demonstrate this to you: why do you think that US soldiers having been tortured relates to a discussion of torture carried out by US forces? Other than that both contain the word "torture", what is the relevance?

Then please tell me how it is relevant? You have claimed that it is, now demonstrate how it is.


Ever think about WHY this all happened? What made US forces do some of these things? Maybe someone thought, "Hey, I'm getting my ass chapped over they way our troops are dealt with when captured, so turn about is fair play" (which isn't right, but may be the line of thought someone had)?

When we went over, we were briefed on what happened to flyers in the First Gulf War, and what to expect when captured. Being tortured came up. Or was this irrelevent and shouldn't have been briefed?

Now, still having trouble why the two are related? You can't have one without the other.

And I still haven't seen you answer my question: Is it OK to forget the Geneva Conventions when it comes to torturing US troops, since we invaded and occupied them "illegally"? You seemed to have been leaning that way.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Ever think about WHY this all happened? What made US forces do some of these things? Maybe someone thought, "Hey, I'm getting my ass chapped over they way our troops are dealt with when captured, so turn about is fair play" (which isn't right, but may be the line of thought someone had)?


It doesn't matter "why"! We are talking international laws here, not excuses. I care about the point you made above about as much as a judge would, which is, not at all. Soldiers represent a state, and they must carry out their duty professionally, which excludes torture. No matter what the enemy does, America must still always abide by the legalities it has agreed to, no matter what. No excuses. And in any case, some of this torture was state sanctioned, rather than just rogue, sadistic soldiers.

The misapprehension you are under is that the actions of the enemy are relevant to America's actions. They are not. Not by law.


And I still haven't seen you answer my question: Is it OK to forget the Geneva Conventions when it comes to torturing US troops, since we invaded and occupied them "illegally"? You seemed to have been leaning that way.


I've answered that many times. Of course it's not "OK". But what they do has no relevance to what America does. Not by law. It doesn't change anything. America is bound by law. If it is not bound by law then what is it? LAWLESS! Criminal.

If the American Government did not think it could engage in these wars without compromising it's integrity and it's legality, then it should not have engaged in them.



[edit on 30-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
It doesn't matter "why"! We are talking international laws here, not excuses. I care about the point you made above about as much as a judge would, which is, not at all. Soldiers represent a state, and they must carry out their duty professionally, which excludes torture. No matter what the enemy does, America must still always abide by the legalities it has agreed to, no matter what. No excuses. And in any case, some of this torture was state sanctioned, rather than just rogue, sadistic soldiers.


"Why" does matter. Why would someone decide to go against international law? Find out the why, you can solve the problem. It's not an excuse, but a motivation.

And I agree about the US abiding by law, but how about the enemy? I don't see anyone taking the piss out of them?


Originally posted by Malcram
The misapprehension you are under is that the actions of the enemy are relevant to America's actions. They are not. Not by law.


And the misapprehension you are under is that the actions of America are relevant to the enemy's actions.


Originally posted by Malcram
I've answered that many times. Of course it's not "OK". But what they do has no relevance to what America does. Not by law. It doesn't change anything. America is bound by law. If it is not bound by law then what is it? LAWLESS! Criminal.


Yes, it does. Suppose that US troops come across the bodies of some of their platoon. They can see that they were captured, tortured and executed. Want to guess what happens to the next guy they capture? Not that it makes it right, but that sort of "tit for tat" has been going on forever.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

"Why" does matter. Why would someone decide to go against international law? Find out the why, you can solve the problem. It's not an excuse, but a motivation.


This thread isn't about "why" the US has used torture and committed war crimes, but about demonstrating that it has done so. Maybe you should start a thread about "why", rather than taking this one off topic.


And I agree about the US abiding by law, but how about the enemy? I don't see anyone taking the piss out of them?


Good, so you agree. Again, if you want to create a thread about the war crimes of the enemy, go ahead. I for one don't dispute that such crimes have taken place.


And the misapprehension you are under is that the actions of America are relevant to the enemy's actions.


Not at all. I don't think that the US should not commit war crimes because, if it stops doing so, then the enemy will also stop committing war crimes. I've never said that, and don't believe it for a second. The US must not commit war crimes simply because to do so is immoral, illegal and destroys US credibility.

But of course the actions of America are "relevant" to this issue, because if those soldiers were not IN Iraq and Afghanistan, they would not be being tortured and killed. The US invasion and occupation is what has put them in harms way. Does that make what the enemy does to them there acceptable? Of course not! But if you go ramming your head into a wasps nest you do so knowing full well what will happen next. A child could predict it. The easy solution to safeguard US soldiers is not to send them to invade and occupy other people's countries in wars of aggression based on lies. The actions of the US government are directly related to what is happening to US troops. So, America's actions are relevant to the enemies actions, in that if America hadn't attacked and invaded their countries, then US soldiers would not be being tortured and killed in such numbers, because they simply wouldn't be there to be captured, tortured and killed.


Yes, it does. Suppose that US troops come across the bodies of some of their platoon. They can see that they were captured, tortured and executed. Want to guess what happens to the next guy they capture? Not that it makes it right, but that sort of "tit for tat" has been going on forever.


We agree then, it "doesn't make it right". Right is all I'm interested in. Not excuses. I don't care about "understanding" in this context. I understand why pedophiles abuse children, or why serial killers murder innocent people and why torturers torture their victims - but they're all still criminals. As I said, if you want to create a thread helping us to understand the mind of US torturers, go ahead. But this thread it about the fact that the US has committed war crimes, not why.

Also, it's natural for us to debate OUR part in the dynamic, because we can affect what OUR "side" does. We can talk about the evils of the enemy all day, but we can only control OUR actions (America and It's Allies) and what is done in OUR name. It is OUR duty to abide by law and to be humane and not torture, not SO THAT the enemy will do the same, but because we must in order to be legally and morally just.

We have failed to do that and US credibility has been destroyed. America is now globally despised. We are all far less safe than before these wars began.


[edit on 30-4-2009 by Malcram]




top topics



 
24
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join