Paul Auster reads from autopsy reports (Reckoning with Torture)

[superfisto]

Beat to death.

[greycloud24]

i think it would be more fair if they also read what the killed prisoners were expected to know, and for what reason they were being interogated. in war, it is NOT innocent until proven guilty. innocent until proven guilty does not work in war zones where people are still dying.

[MegF142857]

@greycloud24 I think the point is about whether the US "tortures" and whether admits to that fact or not. It isn't really whether they are guilty or not guilty. It isn't intended to be a "fair" presentation, but about drawing attention to whether the US has tortured in process of interrogation. Whether someone agrees or not can be left to them to decide, but they are just trying to draw attention to situation vs sweep under the rug, IMO.

[superfisto]

@greycloud24 Who really cares why we were questioning them? It's not going to justify beating them to death.

[greycloud24]

@superfisto in a war zone, carrying a weapon justifies killing you. carrying information about weapons and enemies justifies killing you. i am a veteran of two wars now, i was a medic. my job was to save lives, and more lives can be saved by stopping enemy groups from becoming armed. this saves enemy lives, american lives, and innocent civilian lives who would have been caught in the crossfire.

if one life is lost to save many, it is justified in my opinion.

[superfisto]

@greycloud24 Poor analogy. This wasn't in a war zone. This was custody.

[greycloud24]

@superfisto the people were detained and held by soldiers in violent territories where armed US soldiers are in a hostile area. it is a warzone. the reports do not state what injuries these people had prior to being delivered to a military detention area. one person was specifically sited as being interogated by military personale (special forces).

if special force troops are interogating enemy combatants than i don't care if they kill them to get information that can save other lives.

[superfisto]

@greycloud24 1) You don't know how they were captured.

2) Your views are not aligned with basic human rights or the Geneva Convention.

[greycloud24]

@superfisto i know that my unit captured "suspects" and by suspects i mean people who were captured after having attacked other units. one of the kids in our unit got demoted when he punched a "prisoner" who we captured that had fired an RPG into a LMTV full of soldiers. i hope that guy was one of the ones who was killed during interogation.

i know how some of them were captured, and the ones i do know about should not be given "human rights" just because we didn't kill them on sight.

[greycloud24]

@greycloud24 would you refrain from defending your wife and children under the guise of "human rights" if someone was trying to kill them? how is that any different than soldiers trying to protect each other from people who are trying to kill them?

there may be a few "innocent" people in those prisons, i am not saying they are all guilty. but how many innocent people do you think were nterogated by soldiers in such a crude manner? we are only that harsh to people who killed our own.