Guantánamo Prisoner Dies After Being Held for Nine Years Without Charge or Trial

Originally posted by MajorCee
[quote


Did you watch the video Major no stars ?
Probably not .

You are on the wrong forum , here we don't take kindly to abuse of innocents . innocents till proven guilty .

Originally posted by MajorCee

Johnny Canuck,
For someone who actually went through torture, and can
testify, first hand what torture is you should look
at Colonel Bud Day.

Johnny Canuck answers:

I don't need to. I can look at American precedent. Anyway, our
conversation is through. As I said, I'm not about to change your
mind and seeing that your rants don't amount to discourse...I
don't bother reading them.
However...that shouldn't stop me from contributing to the rest
of the thread, right? Happy Trails.

Oh Johnny, you are such a little devil, You are "out of here",
and "our conversations are through", but that won't stop you from
conversing with me. Then to top it off, you say this concerning
to reading my posts:

I don't bother reading them.

This answers a question I had. I was wondering why you made
no sense in your replies to my posts. Now it is clear, you
don't bother reading them. Good for you, keep it up, don't
read them, and then respond to them. I am looking forward to
how this works out.

All in all, it seems to me you use the logic of all those
that are against America. That is, you have no logic.

Johnny, if you need someone to argue against America, you have
found the guy to do it.

I'm your huckleberry.

Where's that darned ignore button? Mods...please bring it back!

Originally posted by MajorCee
If you want to make an argument, you really have to define what is torture. I did, why
can't you?

I must have missed your definition. I did read a post discussing how much worse American POWs are treated, but no clear definition of torture. I specifically did not see a definition of torture in which waterboarding - a simulated drowning technique that causes mental anguish, and potentially physical harm - would be excluded.

I re-read a couple of your posts, but maybe I still missed it. What is your definition of torture?

edit: I originally read these posts awhile ago, so my memory may be failing me... the impression I have though is that you do not believe water boarding is torture. Correct me if that is not true.

I must have missed your definition. (about what torture is)

Yes, I guess you missed it. Pay more attention in the future.
I said, during my talk on the training US military received, that
American interrogation relied more on mental pressure, than on
physical things like pain, that we used methods that did not
do physical harm, but relied on mental factors.

Now to go further with this, just the lowly method of "good
cop, bad cop", is just a mental game. In this method, a
bad cop is yelling and screaming at the interrogated, giving
the impression that he is going to do physical harm, then
the good cop, comes in and saves the poor interrogated
person,

Likewise, to "good cop, bad cop", which every police interrogation
in the US employs, if they have any sophistication, water boarding
is actually a mental process. In water boarding you make the
subject believe that he is going to drown. He really is not, but
he believes it. This is entirely a mental game, if he did not believe
that he was going drown, then he might withstand it. But since
he BELIEVES he is going to die, he might give in, like the 3
individuals did, that were subjected to this under US interrogation.

Of course, if you are a nitwit, then you can say that hard mental
stress is torture, and Obama as stated by Col Bud Day seems to
subscribe to the belief that water boarding is torture. In essence
though Obama has also declared that almost all the police forces
in the US use torture, since they also use "good cop, bad cop" as
a standard means, and this is nothing but mental stress. It has
never been taken to be torture, in the past by anyone with any brains.

Of course, if you are a nitwit, then you can say that hard mental
stress is torture, and Obama as stated by Col Bud Day seems to
subscribe to the belief that water boarding is torture. In essence
though Obama has also declared that almost all the police forces
in the US use torture, since they also use "good cop, bad cop" as
a standard means, and this is nothing but mental stress. It has
never been taken to be torture, in the past by anyone with any brains.

Good cop bad cop does not apply 'mental pressure.' It's a trick. It is not torture and nobody calls it torture. You are putting words in people's mouths.

Pain is pain. Psychological terror is pain. Hot pliers bring pain. Chinese water torture is pain. But apparently only 'nitwits' think that psychological pain is pain.

Since you might have missed it, here are some quotes in this
thread where I mentioned US tactics on interrogation:

Some facts I have encountered through actual conversation
with former POW and interegators is that the US soldiers
actually have been tortured as a matter of course in
number of wars. On the other hand US interegators took
a different ploy on getting information. US tactics
use deception and bluff, and this was something to expect
from an enemy also, but you only got this from them
if they were civilized, and many of our enemies were
not very civilized.

Notice the part, "US tactics use deception and bluff"

Even water boarding our most extreme interogation was only
used on three prisoners, and most experts on the subject
believe it was just mental stress, not physical torture.
You put the cloth over the prisoners head and pour water
on it blocking the free flow of air to the point that
the guy thinks he is drowning. He is not, but he thinks he
is, so he talks. You could do something similar by
putting a garter snake up to his neck and telling him
it was a black mamba and he is going to bite you if
you don't talk. Extreme mental pressure, but no physical
damage imparted to detract from long and successful
life afterward with full body function and no physical
pain or damage.

Notice the part, "Extreme mental pressure, but no physical
damage"

Our interrogators would use mental pressure, and anguish.
We might have a couple prisoners waiting to be interrogated,
setting beside each other waiting to go into the interrogation
chamber. Guards come out and take the first prisoner in.
This first prisoner is actually a plant, not a real prisoner.
Then you hear from the interrogation room, some beating and
screaming and this goes on for awhile. Then the first
prisoner is taken out on a stretcher. Then the second
prisoner is taken in and interrogated. This is just one
of many tricks that can be used without actual physical
torture. There are many more.

Notice the part, "This is just one of many tricks that can
be used without actual physical torture. There are many more."
I am not going to give you any more of our techniques. They
don't need to be advertised. If you have any imagination,
you can probably figure out other ways to put mental strain
on an individual.

You compare out techniques with what has been used against
the US, and there is no comparison. Look at what Bud Day
went through, and he is just one of many. Given the alternatives
of what US soldiers go through, and what US interrogators have
put enemy through, is the difference between night and day.

[

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
Another innocent put through hell, robbed of dignity and life under the guise of American justice.

If your government will find a way to legally do this to non-US citizens, it is only a matter of time before they find a way to legally treat their own in the same manner.

They already are. Its called "I don't like your politics or race or religion, so let's make a deal. Because I railroaded you into a refrigerated prison torture house without evidence or a jury trial".

They kidnap your kids, then they throw you in the Gulag- I'll let you know the rest in two years.

reply to post by MajorCee


I think that waterboarding is worse than mere intimidation and trickery because it produces the sensation of drowning. It doesn't just make someone *think* that they're drowning, it produces the same physical and psychological responses as actual drowning. To me, that is crossing the line into torture because it is causing undue and acute suffering.

I am curious about your definition of torture. Let's use another example. The US military recently demonstrated a 'microwave gun' that emits microwave radiation in a focussed beam. It causes the nerves to light up in instantaneous and severe pain - from what I have heard, it causes the maximum amount of pain that the nervous system is capable of conveying. However, it causes no physical damage whatsoever. If this was used in an interrogation, would you consider it an instrument of torture?

reply to post by MajorCee


You still haven't defined torture. Good job on slipping in a few insults though

I am intrigued at what your personal definition of torture really is. Please, if you reply to me, all I really care to hear is your definition of torture. Anything else you feel like sharing is just a bonus.

I am trying to infer your definition of torture based on your posts. How is this for a rough draft?

Torture: Inflicting physical pain upon a person that can potentially result in long-term physical damage to the body.


Under this definition, I would still consider water boarding torture. There is the potential for long term brain damage manifesting as PTSD, depression, anxiety, phobia and/or other personality changing disorders.

Originally posted by MajorCee
water boarding is actually a mental process.

Your assertion that water boarding is purely mental is flat out wrong. The victim is being physically stressed by subjecting them to the early stages of drowning. There is mental stress - as a reaction to the physical stress being exerted upon the body.

The comparison of water boarding to Good Cop/Bad Cop is disingenuous - there is no physical force applied to the mark with this technique.


It is torture if someone intentionally takes action against another that results in this...

As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia (rapid heart beat) and gasping for breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water. Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD.

- Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture Waterboarding - Wikipedia

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by MajorCee

 

I think that waterboarding is worse than mere intimidation and trickery because it produces the sensation of drowning. It doesn't just make someone *think* that they're drowning, it produces the same physical and psychological responses as actual drowning.

Like I said...they hanged Japanese for waterboarding Americans in WW2. Seems to explain everything that needs to be said.

I am intrigued at what your personal definition of torture really is
your definition of torture. Anything else you feel like sharing
is just a bonus.

Thought I covered that, but since you missed it, basically torture
to me is damaging physical pressure or pain applied, where as, US
interrogation stressed putting mental stress on the person, as
described in the good cop, bad cop, having a planted POW that is
apparently beaten right before the actual POW is interrogated, as
well as others. If no actual physical damage, or pain is induced
I would say it is not torture, and I thought I had made that
clear from showing some examples of what we did.

The comparison of water boarding to Good Cop/Bad Cop is disingenuous
- there is no physical force applied to the mark with this
technique.

Actually I think it is a very good comparison. In good cop/bad cop,
the bad cop may yell, push and prod the person as if he is going
to inflict some real harm, then the good cop intervenes, and saves
the person. The only thing that makes it work, is that the person
has to believe the bad cop is actually going to follow through/
In fact, the bad cop is not going to follow through, everything
is really in the mind of the person undergoing interrogation.
Likewise in waterboarding the person has to believe he is a
goner.

With waterboarding, you hit upon a basic survival need and reflex,
in that if a person can't breath he really believes he is going
to die. This is what made waterboarding work. With a bad cop,
the person just has to believe this guy is going to kill him,
and even that might not be enough until basic survival is somehow
triggered in the person. In most scenarios this won't happen.
With police in America, for example, it is extremely rare that
the police will actually do physical harm and everyone knows it,
so anyone with sophistication, knows the bad cop is just blowing
smoke. In a POW situation though, the POW may not know it.
Still he might hold out until he experiences such pain that he
can no longer resist. The US does not put that pain or physical
pressure on the person, as I said, we rely on mental stress.
So our interrogators had to rely on "tricks" like making them
think they were in deep serious danger if they did not cooperate.
Waterboarding was an extreme and it was only used on three
individuals, and they all caved in and started singing. In
the future, it probably will not work, because the foot soldiers
will be trained to know that when waterboarding is done, the
fear is strong, but if you just resist, they will let you breath
pretty soon. Once a resistor knows what the interrogator is
up to, he can resist. Waterboarding will not work now, unless
the enemy is too stupid to give full training and briefing to his
people. Waterboarding was used on all the people who administered
it. Were they tortured? Of course not, just knowing that
they were not really going to drown, they all came through it
just fine.

So waterboarding is just like good cop/bad cop, in each scenario
the person believes he is has to cooperate to save himself, but
in fact, there is really no physical danger, it is all in his
head.

Another point to remember, there is ALWAYS, get that ALWAYS
physical pressure applied to any prisoner, and that goes
to even the DUI that gets hauled into jail, right here in
the US. That prisoner is physically accosted, shackled,
placed in incarseration, and held beyond his ability to
resist. This is the nature of being in captivity. It
is not pleasant, but there is a big different between
shackling, hand cuffing, being pushed around, holding in
an incapacitated state and in giving that individual pain
and physical damage to his body.

Like I said...they hanged Japanese for waterboarding Americans
in WW2. Seems to explain everything that needs to be said

You cannot name one Japanese that was hanged for waterboarding
Americans. The Japanese were among the very worst in their
inhumane treatment of the enemy, and only a very few of them
answered up for it. The ones that did answer did a lot more
than waterboarding.

reply to post by MajorCee


You say that torture is when physical damage OR pain is applied, so I am interested in your interpretation of the microwave gun. It causes no damage, but it does cause physical pain. Is that a method of torture, yes or no?

reply to post by MajorCee

basically torture to me is damaging physical pressure or pain applied

I have never experienced a waterboarding. I have however, had water enter my lungs. It is incredibly painful. I am not trying to change your mind about waterboarding being torture, I was trying to understand how you can define torture the way you do and not view waterboarding as fitting that definition.

Thank you for your insight and respectful post.

On another note, there may have only been 3 people at Gitmo who received waterboarding, but between there were over 266 sessions of waterboarding split between the three of them. That seems excessive, dare I say torturous.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


It is shameful and never should have happened. That is what you get from this idiocy when you bring these folks home as "criminals". They should have had military tribunals in the field, where these folks were caught and either executed them on site or released them.

Obviously the problem with the current model is three fold. One that a high percentage of these folks return to terrorism when they are released, two that no other countries wants these folks and three the very nature of their capture exludes chain of custody of evidence so they would likely win in a civil court.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

 

It is shameful and never should have happened. That is what you get from this idiocy when you bring these folks home as "criminals". They should have had military tribunals in the field, where these folks were caught and either executed them on site or released them.

Obviously the problem with the current model is three fold. One that a high percentage of these folks return to terrorism when they are released, two that no other countries wants these folks and three the very nature of their capture exludes chain of custody of evidence so they would likely win in a civil court.

You don't get it, do you? Most of them weren't 'captured' in 'the field' at all, but fell foul of local warlords cause y'all (the Merkun military) had put a bounty on prisoners. Anyone who pissed off a warlord or who was a stranger, would find himself turned over to the Americans in exchange for $$$. That included 90 year old men and kids. Could you 'execute' a kid? (I take that back, I am sure you could if he was a 'furriner' or a sand 'n-word''.
Vicky

reply to post by Vicky32


If they had simply run afoul of a warload, they would not be found guilty in a tribunal and would be released. Now where they went after that is their business. If they were found on the field of battle, they would have been found guilty and executed.

The only other alternative would be to simply turn them over to the government/authority and let them deal with them and to the extent that the authority was that same warlord, so be it. They never should have been taken into custody and brought to a military base. There was absolutely no logic to that decision and once it was made by Bush, there was nothing to do with these folks.

At this stage, every one should be returned to their country of origin. Oh, I forgot that the reason we won't do that is that the governments of their native country, such as Yemen have stated that they will simply kill them.

there may have only been 3 people at Gitmo who received
waterboarding, but between there were over 266 sessions
of waterboarding split between the three of them

I think you will find that 266 sessions refers to the number
of times that water was applied to the cloth. At 266 sessions
for 3 prisoners, that averages 88 times per prisoner. These
prisoners gave in very quickly, there was no way that a
prisoner was waterboarded every day for 88 days. No interrogater
worth his pay would keep trying that long with a technique
that plainly did not work. On the other hand if you had one
session where you applied 88 splashes of water onto the
towel on his face you get a whole different picture, don't
you. First 10 splashes just got the towell wet, then he
had to gasp a bit and decide that he was really in trouble,
then it took a some more water on the towell, and by the
way, this could be done entirely without the water entering
the lungs. I have taken on water a number of times while
swimming, have done a lot of long distance swimming, and
it really is not pleasant, but somehow I manage to keep on
swimming, so it can't be to traumatic, can it?

It is shameful and never should have happened. That is what
you get from this idiocy when you bring these folks home as
"criminals". They should have had military tribunals in the
field, where these folks were caught and either executed them
on site or released them.

Well that is just your opinion, but I could just as easily say:

It was smart and should have happened. That is what
you get from this smart interrogation when you bring these
criminals in and were able to get important information. Then
again, the idea that "they should have had military tribunals in
the field, where these folks were caught and either executed then
on site or released then", does sound pretty good on the surface,
I wonder if it will still sound as good, when I think that one
over for awhile.

You don't get it, do you? Most of them weren't 'captured' in 'the fi

I guess I don't get it. As far as I know these guys, were captured
in the field. Quite a few have been let go, and a number of them
have fought again. It would appear that any errors we made, were
in letting people go that should not have been let go, that being
the case.

Its absolutely disgusting. Why aren't they getting trials? How can
can anybody be arrested and detained for nothing?

They were captured, not arrested, just like thousands of US
prisoners that were captured by the Germans in WWII. They
stayed in prisoner status until the war ended. Actually
they were treated pretty good, compared to our POWs in
other situations.

In all 9 years of serving time at gitmo, Awal Gul was never even
charged with a crime, let alone found guilty.
So yes, that means he was innocent.

Well maybe he was just an innocent soldier, we don't really know,
but we do know that Al Qaeda is still recruiting and has not
stopped their war effort. The US has let a number go, and they
certainly had reason to not let this one go. On the other hand
look at the Weigers, they let them go and even found a country
for them, Bermuda. These guys were judged to be no problem,
or innocent or some such thing, so we know beyond doubt that
the US did treat prisoners very humanly, in this example.
They were sent to Bermuda because if sent to China it was
thought that the Chinese would kill them, they being a muslim
sect but living in Chinese territory. Ask yourself why we
bent over backwards to help these Weigers that were also
captured on the battlefield, and they also have said the
US treated them very well and they have no grudges. Now
what is going on here? Could it possibly be that the nitwit
who died, was completely unrepentant and deemed to be a
threat if we let him go? This certainly makes more sense
than the US just wanted to torture him and kill him. What
was unique about him? None of you have a clue and neither
do I. We can see by example though the US has let a number
go, and been burned when they again went against us. On
the whole I say, the people trying to paint the US as bad
guys here, have other motives, and the evidence against the
US as they try to present it, is by and large BS.

This is now over a week and the authors of the arguments against the
US have been silent. Are you out of ammunition, not that you ever had
any ammunition, but you have been totally silent. Can you no longer
defend this idiot that decided to take up a life against the US instead
of trying to make a successful life for himself. Are you completely out
of ammunition in your fight to show the US is bad? Think long and
hard, how has this idiot that decided to take on the US and then died
in prison, after his efforts which were exploited by the latest revival of
the Muslim campaign to rule the world? Well, did it all go down well
for him, or did he blow it?
.,