Re: Terrorists & The Geneva Conventions

On Sep 18, 9:16 pm, Vincent <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
> RTOTrainerwrote:
> > On Sep 18, 9:25 am, Vincent <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
> >>RTOTrainerwrote:
> >>> On Sep 18, 7:55 am, Vincent <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
> >>>>RTOTrainerwrote:
> >>>>> On Sep 17, 8:23 am, Vincent <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
> >>>>>>RTOTrainerwrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sep 17, 7:41 am, Vince <fire...@firelaw.us>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>RTOTrainerwrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sep 16, 6:37 am, Vince
<fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>RTOTrainerwrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> They are entitled to their opinions,
but it doesn't hold much
water
> >>>>>>>>>>> legally. The methods used are
productive, and are not illegal
.  They
> >>>>>>>>>>> do not constitute torture or abuse and
as such are not prohib
ited by
> >>>>>>>>>>> treaty or statue.
> >>>>>>>>>>> As for information being misleading,
you'll have to provide s
ome
> >>>>>>>>>>> illustrations of this.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Torture does not have a place in
conduct of war by a people w
ho have
> >>>>>>>>>>> signed agreements not to do it.
 We've said we won't, so we
don't.
> >>>>>>>>>> Common article 3 specifically prohibits
torture \
> >>>>>>>>>> Anytime, anyplace
> >>>>>>>>> So what's your point?  We don't do it.
> >>>>>>>> You declare that what we do is not torture
> >>>>>>>> pencil whipping
> >>>>>>>> You can call a tail a leg but it doesn't make it
one
> >>>>>>>> you can call water boarding non torture but it
doesn't make it s
o
> >>>>>>>> Vince- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>> I'm applying the legal (staute and treaty) standard.
 What stan
dard
> >>>>>>> are you using?
> >>>>>> Better provide a citation
> >>>>>> here is the US statute
> >>>>>> TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340
> >>>>>> Prev | Next
> >>>>>> § 2340. Definitions
> >>>>>> As used in this chapter—
> >>>>>> (1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting
under 
the color
> >>>>>> of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or
mental 
pain
> >>>>>> or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to
lawful
> >>>>>> sanctions) upon another person within his custody or
physical cont
rol;
> >>>>>> (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged
ment
al harm
> >>>>>> caused by or resulting from—
> >>>>>> (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of
severe
> >>>>>> physical pain or suffering;
> >>>>>> (B) the administration or application, or threatened
administratio
n or
> >>>>>> application, of mind-altering substances or other
procedures calcu
lated
> >>>>>> to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
> >>>>>> (C) the threat of imminent death; or
> >>>>>> (D) the threat that another person will imminently be
subjected to
> >>>>>> death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the
administration or
> >>>>>> application of mind-altering substances or other
procedures calcul
ated
> >>>>>> to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
> >>>>>> Setting aside the "color of law" issue which is
unrelated to the c
urrent
> >>>>>> discussion , this will do
> >>>>>> now if your claim is that water boarding is not severe
physical or
> >>>>>> mental pain
> >>>>>> provide a cite
> >>>>>> Vince- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>> You can't just "set aside" part of the staute.
> >>>> of course you can
> >>>> "who" does torture in a statute has nothing to do with
the "definiti
on"
> >>>> of torture
> >>>>> There has been a failure of the civilian leadership in this
regard.
> >>>>> They have not provided a "bright line" definition of
torture. Howev
er,
> >>>>> insitutionally, neither DoD nor the Army have advanced a clear
> >>>>> definition, only reiterating what marginal guidance we get
from
> >>>>> statute and treaty.
> >>>>> If it is "torture" then it cannot be legal or
ethical if only becau
se
> >>>>> we have made agreements (Geneva and Hague Conventions) not to
use s
uch
> >>>>> methods.
> >>>>> Torture, as generally understood (which is as usually depicted
by
> >>>>> Hollywood and television) is not interrogation. It's simple
sadism
> >>>>> which is depicted as effective or not per the needs of the
plot.
> >>>>> Torture, as an ajdunct to interrogation, however, despite the
usual
> >>>>> arguments, is 100% effective.
> >>>> nonsense
> >>>> provide a cite for this shit
> >>>>   We know this and we teach it in SERE
> >>>>> school: Everyone has a breaking point. What breaks the
subject,
> >>>>> however, is not the pain or the torturer, it is the relief
from pai
n
> >>>>> and the interrogator. It's a means to speed up the raport that
an
> >>>>> interrogator must develop with the subject. (I'm on your side.
I ca
n
> >>>>> make them stop if you'll tell me what you know. I hate to see
this
> >>>>> happen to you.) To that end, coersion has and must have a
place in
> >>>>> interrogation; interrogation *is* coersion in fact. The
question
> >>>>> remains, though, as to where along the coersive method
escalation t
he
> >>>>> line is crossed from merely harsh treatment to torture.
> >>>> This is simply hollywood fantasy
> >>>> Provide other than your local bar and grill
> >>>> Vince- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> You dispute that we teach in SERE that everyone has a breaking point?
> >> I dispute the fact that what is taught defines what is real
>
> >> part of what you have to teach people in SERE is that if they reach
> >> their breaking point its no disgrace.
>
> >>> There are personal memoirs by those who have been to SERE and who hav
e
> >>> been POWs that reiterate that point many times.
> >>> As for the rest, you'll have to do as I have done and get to know som
e
> >>> investigators and interrogators.  You can also read the various
> >>> service Intelligence/Interrogation manuals.
> >> Oh I have
>
> >> Just provide a cite that torture routinely produces reliable informati
on
>
> >> You might want to visit the Criminal Museum in Rothenburg Germany and
> >> consult the archives on Torture. Or the Resistance museum in Berlin
>
> >> You think this stuff was invented yesterday?
>
> > Not what I said.
>
> > Torture, used as I have described, is 100% effective in getting
> > information that is of some value to a skilled interrogaor/
> > intelligence analyst.  Everyone will break somehow, sometime, under
> > torture.  Information that is known to be false can still be of
> > intelligence value.  I'm sure that concept will make your little head
> > explode, but there it is.
>
> so you say
>
> provide a real cite beyond
>
> you say so
>
> for 100 percent effective
>
> Vince- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What will you accept?
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]