Waterboarding

[MMI]

It's a shame you are withdrawing. If it's not because they haven't broken any laws, I'd like to know what your Master thinks the reason is for not rounding up those cell members.

Let me reassure you, Americans as individuals are considered as hospitable as any other national.

[Mr.FixIt]

It's a shame you are withdrawing. If it's not because they haven't broken any laws, I'd like to know what your Master thinks the reason is for not rounding up those cell members.

Let me reassure you, Americans as individuals are considered as hospitable as any other national.

As requested MMI...

In WWII, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the US Government rounded up all of the Japs (as they were referred to at the time) and put them in prision camps (similar to Hitler's concentration camps) where hundreds of thousands were mistreated through unheard of interrogation tactics--probably water boarding too--but chicken noodle news (CNN) wasn't there to report their (unbiased?) opinion on it, were they? Only now, decades later, has the true story of the mistreatment of these legally immigrated Japanese-American Citizens leaked out. And to my knowledge, correct me if I am wrong, no super secret intel was gathered from the captivity and torture of any of those Japs. At this same same point in the US history, we still, even long after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclomation and the US Civil War, were mistreating African-Americans simply because of their skin color (and they didn't even attack us!) And, I could go on and on about the genocide that we inflicted on the American Natives (Indians)! Or we could talk about the burning of innocent women and men during the Salem witch trials. We're not the good guys, we have a horrible history. If I have left out any religion or nationality that has been historically mistreated by my government, I assure you it was simply an oversight.

Now that this dark era in American history is general public knowledge due to the freedom of the media (and their abuse of that freedom), and through our own history of atrocious mistreatment of numerous groups of people, surely our government knows that public knowledge of such attrocities would not fare well in the media. So, the prisoners at Abu Ghraib (and other camps as well) were fed food appropriate to their religions, allowed the freedom to practice their individual religions within reason, and were within reason officially treated with dignity and respect. But, all it took was for a couple of ignorant backwoods fuckers (yes fuckers, just as I referred to the 9/11 terrorists in a previous post as fuckers) to fuck it all up and ruin the reputation of our well intentioned government. Now the whole water boarding thing is public knowledge too. To my knowledge, we haven't water boarded thousands of suspects randomly as some here have suggested. Surely this type of tactic has been reserved for a specific few that, based on credible intel, have implicated that use of such an extreme tactic would prove beneficial to uncover further life saving credible intel. If my certainties are wrong, then I lay down my entire argument, and the latest reality show "Water Boarding for Intel" should be cancelled before the pilot even airs!

I work for the US Government in a security occupation, If I tell you who I work for they will have to kill me! The actions that we take on a daily basis are specifically related to the intel that we are provided. But the public is, and should be for national security reasons, ignorant of most of said intel. Therefore, the public assumes that our security processes are ignorant because of their lack of knowlege about the rationale. I can only assume, based on my specific experiences, that the same applies to our lack of understanding in the water boarding debate and the consequential public outcry.

Based on American history, what do you think would happen if we started rounding up sleeper cells--no matter what wonderful, humane, and comfortable living accomodations might be intended--for the purpose of imprisionment? At this point, how well do you think that it would go for the popularity of the US Government in this politically correct atmosphere that we have forced upon ourselves? Not to mention--it's an election year with a lame duck president in the driver's chair. And as anyone who has served a day in the military knows, nothing goes well in an election year! As you requested, that (IMHO) is why we are not currently rounding up the known sleeper cell members.

[Thorne]

I work for the US Government in a security occupation, If I tell you who I work for they will have to kill me! The actions that we take on a daily basis are specifically related to the intel that we are provided. But the public is, and should be for national security reasons, ignorant of most of said intel. Therefore, the public assumes that our security processes are ignorant because of their lack of knowlege about the rationale. I can only assume, based on my specific experiences, that the same applies to our lack of understanding in the water boarding debate and the consequential public outcry.

I can understand the need for keeping secrets in any government. Revealing everything they know could compromise some intelligence assets, both here and abroad. An enemy who knows what we know could figure out how we came to know it. I don't have a problem with keeping those kinds of secrets. Or about strategic assets, such as the stealth program, which was extremely secret at one point, though apparently less so now.

But it's my understanding (and I have no first-hand knowledge of this) that the vast majority of information which has been classified "Secret" by any government, is done so more to protect the reputations and/or dignity of government officials, not to protect the security of the country. It's my opinion that keeping information regarding the activities at Guantanamo Bay secret is, for the most part, one of those kinds of secrets.

[MMI]

That's a long answer! Do I do it injustice by summarising it as, the government knows that rounding up sleeper cells would prove unpopular, and in election year, it would be foolish to alienate voters?

What a cynical risk for them to take with people's lives, just to avoid political disadvantage. Stripedangel said that we don't know where or when they [the sleepers] will attack. That's presumably the Government line. So, there's a risk that there'll be another WTC, and the authorities know this. Yet they are prepared to gamble on US lives - or if they are lucky, on Spanish, British or Saudi lives instead - so as not to jeopardise McCain's chances of election. From over here, the Democrat vote looks split anyway, and most anti-torture, bed-wetting liberals would tend to vote Democrat rather than Republican, so why worry?

On the other hand, you imply that in any other year, they would be rounded up. What? Has this world-wide cell only just been discovered (assuming it really does exist, and is not just made-up to keep us all on edge)? I don't think so. It's not election year in Britain or France or Spain (so far as I know). Why don't those countries round them up? Answer - they can't. They have no proof of wrong-doing.

Going back to the question of torture, I think, that despite the fact that politicians are a bunch of self-seeking megalomaniacs with no real thought for the well-being of their constituents, other than to keep them voting the way they "should", they do pay more than lip-service to the rule of law. After all, they make the laws and the rules of the dirty game they are playing. Even they have to observe certain rules. It is the politicians who have signed up to treaties and conventions against torture because even they are not prepared to condone it openly.

The USA has signed and ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, so it should not now cavil about it. No torture means no torture: there are no exceptions -

Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

However, reading your post again, I feel we have achieved some kind of consensus. Torture is futile. You say, "no super secret intel was gathered from the captivity and torture of any Japs." I'm sure you are right, and conclude that all that was done was to cause unnecessary pain and humiliation.

But then you go on to say that your "well-intentioned" government has been ham-strung by people-who-engage-in-sexual-intercourse (you do that, don't you?) from waterboarding one or two of its unwilling guests - how else do you describe people who have been picked up at gunpoint, deported to a place that is (hopefully) subject only to military (do I mean summary?) justice, kept in cages like animals, subjected to mental torture and deprived of legal representation or POW rights, and then let go without charge or proof of guilt of any kind. Well-intentioned be buggered! I'm sorry, I just can't accept that good intentions justify degrading people for no good and certain purpose. Nor do I accept the supposition that the government is well-intentioned.

Mr Fixit: Surely this type of tactic has been reserved for a specific few that, based on credible intel, have implicated that use of such an extreme tactic would prove beneficial to uncover further life saving credible intel."

It hasn't though, has it? As for "credible intel", I seriously doubt the West is capable of gaining it: so let's not have more "WMD" scare stories.

You say the public should be unaware of most of what your intel says. Why? Because it reveals illegal acts that, if the public knew were taking place, it just would not tolerate it? Or because it's based on a universty student's essay that draws upon information already in the public domain, and the public would be horrified at the government's ineptitude, and the money and lives it was costing?


I cannot answer your question "Based on American history, what do you think would happen if we started rounding up sleeper cells" My knowledge of American history is limited because it played a relatively insignificant role in the British Imperial History course I followed - something about France winning your independence for you, so you could pay higher taxes and have fewer freedoms than when you were subjects of King George I seem to think. But you appear to be guiding my thoughts when you suggest that, despite the most luxurious cages provided and the free trips to foreign countries on the Extreme Rendition Express given to your political prisoners, some lily-livered wimps might still make life uncomfortable for the government.

Wouldn't that be a shame?

Stripedangel. I will look at the links you have provided. Thanks.

I, too, would like the world to be a perfect place, and know that it never will be. But things do get better over time, don't they? I mean, 500 years ago, I'd probably have been advocating that the terrorist be hanged, drawn and quartered, or spit-roasted live. 250 years ago, I'd probably have settled for hanging. 150 years ago, transportation might have been enough.

There's room for optimism.