Torturing "Prisoners"?

[LoboDelFuego]

I recently saw a report where some of the "prisoners" at camp X-Ray were being shipped off to other countries for "interrogation." However, the reporters got some army guy to say "detainees are sent to other nations who do not have the same qualms about using certain methods during the information gathering process."

It seems that the USG has not been practicing what they preach in that sector of the world. Discuss.

[patconnole]

I want proof, but it's probably true. Dagnabit! What's the point of our preaching if we ain't gonna practice it!

"In the interests of national security, we had to ignore some human rights rules we'd usually follow...."

[Dog Welder]

I remember hearing or reading about something the general of Guantanamo Bay said.. something along the lines of if someone's civil/human rights aren't being violated, then I'm not doing my job.

[patconnole]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,909294,00.html

Afghan prisoners beaten to death at US military interrogation base

....The death certificates for the men have four boxes on them giving choices of "natural, accident, suicide, homicide". The Pentagon said yesterday that the choice of "homicide" did not necessarily mean that the dead person had been unlawfully killed......

[manimal]

Originally posted by Dog Welder
I remember hearing or reading about something the general of Guantanamo Bay said.. something along the lines of if someone's civil/human rights aren't being violated, then I'm not doing my job.

cool. people always whine about how badly these prisoners are treated. i think their opinions would change if they were POW's in just about any other country.

[D_D]

Originally posted by manimal
cool. people always whine about how badly these prisoners are treated. i think their opinions would change if they were POW's in just about any other country.

If I was a POW I think I would never want another person to put up with anything I had to put up with.

I think it would proberly make me whine more about other badly treated prisioners rather than less.

[patconnole]

Originally posted by manimal
cool. people always whine about how badly these prisoners are treated. i think their opinions would change if they were POW's in just about any other country.

"we're less bad, so that makes it ok."

[manimal]

Originally posted by patconnole
"we're less bad, so that makes it ok."

yup!!:D

but seriously. lets say you've got a guy in custody that knows that there will be an attack on america in 2 days and where it will be. you think his comfort is worth the potential lives of thousands? i don't. every soldier, no matter friend or foe of the US understands the possibility of capture and the means of getting info out of them. it's part of the reality of war.

[patconnole]

Originally posted by manimal
yup!!:D

but seriously. lets say you've got a guy in custody that knows that there will be an attack on america in 2 days and where it will be. you think his comfort is worth the potential lives of thousands? i don't. every soldier, no matter friend or foe of the US understands the possibility of capture and the means of getting info out of them. it's part of the reality of war.


What a great standard to hold ourselves up to: Just better than the next worse. Good point though.... but I hope the "beating them to death style" is reserved only for extreme scenerios like your example.

[manimal]

Originally posted by patconnole
What a great standard to hold ourselves up to: Just better than the next worse. Good point though.... but I hope the "beating them to death style" is reserved only for extreme scenerios like your example.

unfortunately, we are almost the ONLY nation that actually abides by 'most' of the rules set forth by the Geneva Convention.

ALL of our potential enemies do not abide by these rules.

a little fyi: technically, a .50 caliber round is not to be used as an "anti-personnel" round; it is to be used only as an armor piercing round ie. troop carriers, tanks.......

but nearly all helo gunships use .50 caliber machine guns for close air support, ie. shooting the bad guys that are trying to kill the good guys getting on or off the helo.

i just thought that was kinda weird.

[Dog Welder]

Hey Manimal...isn't the 50 cal a pretty slow firing weapon? My Marine buddy told me that the rate of fire on a 50 is so slow that you could pull single shots pretty easily. IF this is true wouldn't the 50 cal be a bad choice for close air support? Hence the mini guns I've started to see mounted on black hawks?

[manimal]

Originally posted by Dog Welder
Hey Manimal...isn't the 50 cal a pretty slow firing weapon? My Marine buddy told me that the rate of fire on a 50 is so slow that you could pull single shots pretty easily. IF this is true wouldn't the 50 cal be a bad choice for close air support? Hence the mini guns I've started to see mounted on black hawks?

i forget the cyclic rate of the .50 cal but it's not slow. i'll look in my handy manual when i get home and give you a definite answer. you can, with some skill, fire off single shots but it is by no means slow. the gattling style guns currently mounted in many UH-1's (huey's) are .50cal with a really high cyclic rate.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by manimal
i forget the cyclic rate of the .50 cal but it's not slow. i'll look in my handy manual when i get home and give you a definite answer. you can, with some skill, fire off single shots but it is by no means slow. the gattling style guns currently mounted in many UH-1's (huey's) are .50cal with a really high cyclic rate.

.50 cals dont really have a "slow" cyclic rate at all. Its not as fast as a SAW or something, but still quick nonetheless. However, they are capable of pulling sinlge shots as well.

Famed Marine sniper Carlos Hathcock got the bulk of his 93 confirmed kills with a regular 50 cal. ITs a very versatile weapon, but not allowed for anti-personnel use anymore, only anti equipment.

I think the joke around my Marine friends is something like they aim for their canteens so as not to disobey geneva convention rules.

[Dog Welder]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
.50 cals dont really have a "slow" cyclic rate at all. Its not as fast as a SAW or something, but still quick nonetheless. However, they are capable of pulling sinlge shots as well.

Famed Marine sniper Carlos Hathcock got the bulk of his 93 confirmed kills with a regular 50 cal. ITs a very versatile weapon, but not allowed for anti-personnel use anymore, only anti equipment.

I think the joke around my Marine friends is something like they aim for their canteens so as not to disobey geneva convention rules.

Wasn't there a guy who they've discovered had more kills than Carlos Hathcock? I read his book and the 50 cal round that he put through the bike seemed un real. By the way what else do they mount on M1 Abrams? One is most definitely a 50 but what's the other gun?

[DRB]

Originally posted by manimal
a little fyi: technically, a .50 caliber round is not to be used as an "anti-personnel" round; it is to be used only as an armor piercing round ie. troop carriers, tanks.......

but nearly all helo gunships use .50 caliber machine guns for close air support, ie. shooting the bad guys that are trying to kill the good guys getting on or off the helo.

Where did you come up with this rule?

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by DRB
Where did you come up with this rule?

He didnt just come up with it.

ITs outlined somewhere in the Geneva Convention. Its common knowledge to Marines (and probably soldiers) because they're taught it in basic infantry school. There are lots of quirky little rules of war like that.

[DRB]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
He didnt just come up with it.

ITs outlined somewhere in the Geneva Convention. Its common knowledge to Marines (and probably soldiers) because they're taught it in basic infantry school. There are lots of quirky little rules of war like that.

Yeah, he came up with it. There is no prohibition against a .50 (12.7 mm) round as an anti-personnel round.

As to what they teach Marines, I haven't a clue. But the Army, specifically at my Infantry Officer's Basic Course, taught that the Geneva Convention prohibits the use of expanding bullets (a bullet that explodes after entering the body) or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.

Its all covered in the Geneva Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. Section 2, Chapter 1, Articles 22 and 23. Nowhere does in mention .50 ammunition.

Think about it for just one minute. Why would the US military field a weapon in a definate anti-personnel role that was prohibited by the Geneva Convention? I mean the placement and use of the M2 crew served weapon is taught in defensive positions against infantry attack.

[mdavid]

I'm interested in your information that many close air support helos use a .50. I spent quite a bit of time in choppers, calling in close air support and manuevering with a ranger bn platoon element as the forward observer. Most choppers that gave us support (little birds and UH60's) utilized 7.62 mini guns with a killer rate of fire. Spectre on the other hand uses 40mm.....also I never was taught the rule you speak of...heck I'd call 105mm from spectre in a heartbeat if I thought it would take out the bad guys!

maybe you are talking about CAS...? maybe .50's mounted on the rear gate of chinooks... done just not common. mini guns are much funner for chewing through bad guys.