Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] what waterboarding looks like [Politics]

["Vern Green" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

OK, I want to weight in here. I removed all previous discussion because I did not want it to seem like I was commenting on the views of anyone else here.

 

First: Waterboarding is a form of torture. Granted it may not leave permanent scars and is non-lethal, but it is still torture. It is a very effective form of torture. 95% of all CIA agents who have undergone this technique in their training break within 5 minutes.

 

There is a question as to whether torture is effective or not. I think a lot of that depends on two things:

 

1. Does the person know the information you are trying to retrieve. If the person you are torturing does not know the answers to your questions, then the information you will receive is suspect. The subject will tend to tell you anything he thinks you want to know at this point.

 

2. The relevancy of the information. Some of the people at GITMO have been detained for four years, what information could they possible have now that would be relevant to the current crisises? If information control is a strict as it should be, not up-to-date outside information should be available to the detainees.

 

I am no expert in torture, but it seems to me that the best and most useful information would be that information retrieved early when a detainee is first picked up. If you have not broken the subject within 6 months, then to me it would be very hard to get any useful information from them.

 

The Geneva Convention is clear to the treatment of Prisoners of War:

 

Article 17

 

In part:

 

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 any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

 

Now the problem here is that most of the detainees are not covered as Prisoners of War by the Geneva Convention. We have talked about this before and other people mention the same thing. To be a prisoner of war, the combatant needs to be part of a uniformed army or militia, or clearly display such association. To me this clearly does not cover the majority of those in GITMO.

 

It is a quandary to be sure. I personally can respect the need for the information gathered by torture. Additionally, we can expect no following of the Geneva Convention from the enemy in this regard, and since they are really not part of any organized country, there is no country to lay sanctions on, nor any true leader to lodge a formal complaint against, like we might with a Germany in World War 2.

 

This places us in a very interesting dilemna that is not so easy to figure out. These are the kinds of questions we have elected officials to figure out. I do not envy their position in figuring any of this out. I would hope they have read all the particulars and are making an informed decision. I would also hope they have studied and understand the ramifications of their decision to vote yay or nay on the subject.

 

The problem in this regard is we all know that so many (democrats and republicans both) do not do a good job in this regard. Worse, most of them are voting along party lines. Everytime we see a party-line vote it goes to tell me that it does not really about the merits of the bill, whether good or bad. They are voting in order to maintain their own power base.

--
Thanks
F Vernon Green

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion