Despite how much you hate the detainees, is not torture un-American?

Question

Andrew Sullivan of the New York Post seems to think so.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10072007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/we_must_confess.htm

I agree with him. No matter how many times people will bring up 9/11 to try to justify the means, it does not make it right. In fact, it puts America on the same level as Pol Pot, North Korea and Vietnam. To hear media blowhards like Bill O'Reilly defend torture as a viable means of extracting information simply makes me sick. Is this what our great country has sunk to?

I'm going to ignore the ignorant remarks by some of the usual suspects...

Jadis - I can see your point. However, this administration has went above and beyond to insure that these techniques are available for use by interrogators. Yes, some of these Islamofacists will not think twice about removing your head from your spine. But what seperates US from THEM is the fact that our mindset does not exist at that level. We cannot be a beacon of Democracy to the world on one hand, yet break the Geneva Convention, torture and humiliate our prisoners on the other hand.

Answer 1

I would like to point out that a large percentage of the detainees have nothing to do with "terrorism" whatsoever.

They were snatched off the streets, or dragged from their homes in the middle of the night - turned in by their neighbors for American REWARD MONEY.

People over here don't have a clue about how bad it is over there for most Iraqis. What would YOU do to feed your family? You yourself might "turn in" someone for money.

How many of you know the precise number of those prisoners we have released so far with no charges being brought against them?

How can you live with the torture of innocent people?
*************************************************
AP: U.S. Paid Bounty for Capture of Detainees
By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 05:23:22 AM EST

"The Associated Press reported Tuesday that among the documents it received from its Guantanamo FOIA request are transcripts of interviews with detainees in which they allege they were sold to the U.S. for a bounty. This is not new news. It's been reported before by several organizations, by TalkLeft in December, 2003 and May, 2004, and in Time Magazine.

According to Time, activities leading toward release of the 140 [Guantanamo] prisoners have accelerated since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. It said U.S. officials had concluded some detainees were kidnapped for reward money offered for al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. (our emphasis)

Nonetheless, Before Bush calls the latest AP claims "absurd," he needs to consider the statement of this former CIA officer, contained in Tuesday's AP article:

A former CIA intelligence officer who helped lead the search for Osama bin Laden told AP the accounts sounded legitimate because U.S. allies regularly got money to help catch Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. Gary Schroen said he took a suitcase of $3 million in cash into Afghanistan himself to help supply and win over warlords to fight for U.S. Special Forces.


As with the Koran abuse, this isn't the first time the detainee's claims that they ended up at Guantanamo after being sold by the Taliban or Northern Alliance or Mujahdeen have surfaced.

In May, 2004, we wrote about released British detainee Tariq Dergoul. His full story is told by the Observer, here and here:

After the 11 September attacks, he and two Pakistani friends had an idea for what, in hindsight, was one of the worst-judged business ventures of all time. With war looming, they thought many Afghans would want to flee their homes. Dergoul had £5,000 in cash, which he pooled with his friends' savings. 'The plan was to buy some property away from where the bombing was. We thought we could buy it very cheap, then sell it at a profit after the war.'

They travelled to Jalalabad and looked at several empty homes. On the verge of signing a deal, Dergoul and his friends spent the night in a villa. While they were asleep, he said, a bomb landed on it - killing his friends. He went outside and was hit by another bomb, sustaining shrapnel wounds.

For at least a week, unable to walk, he lay among the ruins, drinking from a tap that still worked, and living on biscuits and raisins he had in his pocket. Exposed to the freezing weather, his toes turned black from frostbite. At last he was found by troops loyal to the Northern Alliance. They treated him well, taking him to a hospital where he was given food and three operations. However, after five weeks he was driven to an airfield and handed over to Americans, who arrived by helicopter. Dergoul said the Americans paid $5,000 for him - according to Human Rights Watch, this was the standard fee for a 'terrorist' suspect. They flew him to the US detention camp at Bagram airbase, near Kabul. (emphasis supplied.)

In September, 2004, we wrote about prisoners being released from an Afghan prison.

The last 368 Pakistani prisoners who were jailed 3 years ago for aiding the Taliban in its fight against the U.S. have been freed from jail in Afghanistan and returned home. Originally, there were 2,500 of them. They were kept in deplorable conditions. Many died.

Many of the prisoners originally were religious students who were sold by their "mullahs"--spiritual teachers--as mujahideen (holy warriors) to the Taliban. Here is the story of 22 year old Amir Khan, as told to Reuters:The mullahs in my area said that as Muslims we should go to Afghanistan to fight a jihad....I can not deny this was my intention. I arrived in Afghanistan in October. I spent three days in Kabul and then went to Mazar-i-Sharif. I was captured the day after I arrived there." Like many of his comrades, Khan said he had received no military training and insisted he was a religious student who had been "misled" by the mullahs. "They sold us," he said. "We learned later that for every 10 mujahideen (holy warriors) that they sent, they would receive 5,000 rupees ($100)." (emphasis supplied)

30 year old Mohammed Afriqi was among a group of 50 that surrendered. Only 20 survived: He was initially held at the notorious Shiberghan prison, where Dostum's forces are accused of killing hundreds of prisoners or allowing them to die because of overcrowding. In September 2002, Dostum issued a formal statement acknowledging that "approximately 200 prisoners died, but mostly of wounds suffered in the fighting, disease, suffocation, suicide and general weakness." Afriqi showed Reuters scars on his chest he said came from wounds caused by being whipped with electric cable.

The prisoners said the past 18 months of their captivity had been much better than the initial stage, and Sunday they all looked clean, fit and healthy."

[my comment]: No one ever decided whether these men were prisoners of war. They were the 'Joe Shmoes' of the opposition. The captured fighters that were perceived to have value to the U.S. were shipped to Guantanamo.

On a related note, tapes of the abuse have been acknowledged to exist.

Now, however, Dergoul has revealed a means of proving the claims of violence at Guantanamo, potentially as dramatic as the Abu Ghraib photographs. Every time an ERF squad was deployed, he said, the entire process was recorded on digital video: 'There was always this guy behind the squad, filming everything that happened.'

Last night Lieutenant Colonel Leon Sumpter, the Guantanamo Joint Task Force spokesman, confirmed the videos existed, saying that all ERF (Extreme Reaction Force) actions were filmed so that they could 'be reviewed by the camp commander and the commanding general'. All of them, he said , were kept in an archive at Guantanamo."

Answer 2

Whether torture is "un-American" is of little relevance but rather that such torture or any other extreme measure to get suspected criminals to talk is largely INEFFECTIVE. Not only do they NOT help in rooting out terror, they actually have the opposite effect. For such heavy-handed interrogators, it's not about getting the truth but rather "hearing what they WANT to hear."

"I don't HATE the detainees. I despise what they stand for, and I don't like the fact that they are basically mercenaries, but hate is a very strong word."

This is the problem. Most of the detainees in question are simply ACCUSED of being "enemy combatants" or SUSPECTED of committing or aiding in terrorist acts.

Answer 3

There are no good answers here. My position on this is as Conservative Independent, Father, Grand Father. Great Grandfather, is Life, However in cases involving rape,incest and life of the mother in harms way over carrying to term. I have to side on the choice of the Mother, I am a 30 Year ret. Special Agent for the USJD. and a 11 Year SOCOM member. I finished out my military side with the US Army Reserve. My Mos was Field Interrogation as was my brothers. I agree with your logic on the Soldier and the Child. I do not agree with this sitting president on much of anything.,

Answer 4

I don't HATE the detainees. I despise what they stand for, and I don't like the fact that they are basically mercenaries, but hate is a very strong word.

I have mixed feelings. On one hand, the thought is completely appalling, but on the other hand, I think we are all capable of doing horrible things to others, especially if we think our loved ones - or ourselves - may be at risk.

Then, too, you have the issue of are we really better than anyone else? So many people insist that we're not, but then get mad if we don't ACT like we're better. Did that make sense? LOL Long day.

Edit - Robot, with all due respect, most of these people were captured in battle in Afghanistan. Many of them are not Afghanis, and they certainly were not wearing uniforms. Do mercenaries deserve the same protections as soldiers?

Answer 5

Why should I hate the detainees, I don't know if they are guilty of anything. All I have is bush's word that they are terrorists. He hasn't allowed them any legal service or even a trial. He has even allowed them to know the charges against them except, your are a terrorist. 9/11 is just becoming a catch phrase for bush and his cronies to try and defend the indefensible.

Answer 6

Truth be told, there has always been torture to some degree used in this country. Whether it be roughing up a suspect to get him to talk, to doing the horrible things that are probably going on now, it has always been present. But this does not make it right. Our fore fathers had the foresight to see that this would be a problem and they tried ever so hard to prevent it. unfortunately, one little amendment is not going to stop the federal government. yes it is Un-American and yes it does need to be stopped. Will we be able to anytime soon? The true answer is no, which is truly embarrassing for America.

Answer 7

For the sake and safety of our own troops, we shouldn't be using torture on anyone. Our country and our government has always stated that we do not torture prisoners and we do not attack countries. But since Bush, we can no longer hold our heads up and say this anymore.

Answer 8

no no no no no

Yes, we're probably doing the same things other people have done with our soldiers (except we don't kill our prisoners)...but the fact is, and don't write this off as childish, but our soldiers are not evil....the prisoners we torture for information ARE. We're not going over to other countries and killing terrorists because we hate muslims and think that all muslims need to be exterminated; we're killing terrorists because they are killing and terrorizing us. They're the offense; we're the defense. And they DON'T have the same rights as law-abiding citizens.

Answer 9

Our country has lost it ability to hold it head high and always feel we are taking the moral high ground. I think this is something that will take many,many years to regain. When our government is redefining what is torture, we really no better than a Columbian jail.

Answer 10

How can you hate the detainees? They are faceless entities. Too many of them evidently have been innocent people caught up by the masterful skills and ineptitude of the people responsible for such things.

Do you hate them because of their location (Guantanamo), regardless of their guilt or innocence? Do you hate them because of their religion? Do you hate them because of their nationality? (All good "christian" reasons for hating "them!")

Or do you hate because you are afraid, and the politicians in the US have tried to promote such fear, and the resultant hate?

Answer 11

Yes it is.Which is precisely why the Right Wingers love it so much - they are UN-American to the core.