The Furor Over Gitmo: What Is Torture?
So many people are up in arms over the accusations of the Democrats over the supposed "torture" of detainees at Gitmo. It leaves me with one simple question: What is torture? I have my ideas of what torture is, and I can even define it for you.
Any means executed involuntarily upon another, that causes severe pain or irrepairable damage, to gain any cooperation. That is my definition of torture. It is pretty cut and dry. So, if everyone agrees that this is an adequate definition of torture, is what the detainees are put through at Gitmo torture?
In my opinion, as a "laywoman" is no. The techniques and methods we are using at Gitmo are not even close to torture. There are regimes around the world that use our methods, and worse, on their own POWs, detainees, and political prisoners. Look at what North Korea does to it’s citizens within it’s own gulag. What about what the Soviets did in theirs?
Did Hitler coddle his POWs? Not hardly. Espionage agents were to be killed immediately upon discovery, even if they surrendered. One incident recorded about such acts had a young SS officer that located a British agent, beat him, bled him, then cut his testicles off before hanging him from a lamp-post. I would consider that act not only torture, but a serious war crime; espionage agents have protections under the Geneva Convention. (Yes, I am aware the Convention was not established until AFTER World War II.) Under the civilized rules of warfare before the Convention, "secret agents" still had protections. They were treated as a diplomatic courier, with all the protections they received.
The detainees at Gitmo were caught on the field of battle, in the service of our enemy, and have been detained so they do not return to the battlefield. Approximately 24 detainees were released last year from Gitmo. Our troops in Iraq killed them or captured them, again, not too soon after their release. That is the point of detention; we do not want them facing our troops again.
And to our idiot senior senator from Arizona, John McCain, there will be no "trials" for these people. They will be subject to a military tribunal should we deem that they need one. They have had their tribunal hearing already, and the tribunals take precedent over US law, moron. They are not US citizens, and are not entitled to the protections, freedoms, and liberties of our Constitution. Get that through your senile mind, old man. Your state is not happy with you, right now.
Once this war is over, the detainees will be repatriated back to their homes, wherever they may be. They are not POWs. They are combatants—unlawfull, in nature—caught in battle against our troops, and because of their status, they have no protections under the Convention, either.
So, is sleep deprivation torture? Sensory deprivation? Loud music? Being forced to stand for extended periods of time? "Excessive" heat and cold? (The detainees do not know hot. Send them to Arizona.) Being confined in various positions? These are not torture methods. These are interrogation methods. They are not causing severe pain or irrepairable damage to the detainee.
They are making them uncomfortable. They are keeping basic information from them (night or day, sound or none, etc.). But this is not torture. Our troops endure more "torture" when they enlist, go through boot camp, and further advanced training. Yes, I will yield that is voluntary, but it is no less torturous on the recruit.
Oh, if only the ACLU could be at Parris Island.
Point being is that what the Democrats claim is torture is a lie. Just like everything else they have said about this war. They do not like it. They despise our military’s success. They want us to suffer a serious defeat. It is sad that they are cheering on such things, but the Democrat leaders ratcheting up the rhetoric think exactly that way. It is the Vietnam mentality all over again. But this time, I think our side is better prepared. Of course, we still have one helluva reminder.
It is called September 11th, 2001.
The Bunny ;)
So many people are up in arms over the accusations of the Democrats over the supposed "torture" of detainees at Gitmo. It leaves me with one simple question: What is torture? I have my ideas of what torture is, and I can even define it for you.
Any means executed involuntarily upon another, that causes severe pain or irrepairable damage, to gain any cooperation. That is my definition of torture. It is pretty cut and dry. So, if everyone agrees that this is an adequate definition of torture, is what the detainees are put through at Gitmo torture?
In my opinion, as a "laywoman" is no. The techniques and methods we are using at Gitmo are not even close to torture. There are regimes around the world that use our methods, and worse, on their own POWs, detainees, and political prisoners. Look at what North Korea does to it’s citizens within it’s own gulag. What about what the Soviets did in theirs?
Did Hitler coddle his POWs? Not hardly. Espionage agents were to be killed immediately upon discovery, even if they surrendered. One incident recorded about such acts had a young SS officer that located a British agent, beat him, bled him, then cut his testicles off before hanging him from a lamp-post. I would consider that act not only torture, but a serious war crime; espionage agents have protections under the Geneva Convention. (Yes, I am aware the Convention was not established until AFTER World War II.) Under the civilized rules of warfare before the Convention, "secret agents" still had protections. They were treated as a diplomatic courier, with all the protections they received.
The detainees at Gitmo were caught on the field of battle, in the service of our enemy, and have been detained so they do not return to the battlefield. Approximately 24 detainees were released last year from Gitmo. Our troops in Iraq killed them or captured them, again, not too soon after their release. That is the point of detention; we do not want them facing our troops again.
And to our idiot senior senator from Arizona, John McCain, there will be no "trials" for these people. They will be subject to a military tribunal should we deem that they need one. They have had their tribunal hearing already, and the tribunals take precedent over US law, moron. They are not US citizens, and are not entitled to the protections, freedoms, and liberties of our Constitution. Get that through your senile mind, old man. Your state is not happy with you, right now.
Once this war is over, the detainees will be repatriated back to their homes, wherever they may be. They are not POWs. They are combatants—unlawfull, in nature—caught in battle against our troops, and because of their status, they have no protections under the Convention, either.
So, is sleep deprivation torture? Sensory deprivation? Loud music? Being forced to stand for extended periods of time? "Excessive" heat and cold? (The detainees do not know hot. Send them to Arizona.) Being confined in various positions? These are not torture methods. These are interrogation methods. They are not causing severe pain or irrepairable damage to the detainee.
They are making them uncomfortable. They are keeping basic information from them (night or day, sound or none, etc.). But this is not torture. Our troops endure more "torture" when they enlist, go through boot camp, and further advanced training. Yes, I will yield that is voluntary, but it is no less torturous on the recruit.
Oh, if only the ACLU could be at Parris Island.
Point being is that what the Democrats claim is torture is a lie. Just like everything else they have said about this war. They do not like it. They despise our military’s success. They want us to suffer a serious defeat. It is sad that they are cheering on such things, but the Democrat leaders ratcheting up the rhetoric think exactly that way. It is the Vietnam mentality all over again. But this time, I think our side is better prepared. Of course, we still have one helluva reminder.
It is called September 11th, 2001.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home