7 ms·

From what I understand (from talking to now very old Japanese-American men who were in the camps as young adults) it was unpleasant and caused significant hards

From what I understand (from talking to now very old Japanese-American men who were in the camps as young adults) it was unpleasant and caused significant hardship, but not even remotely similar to what's in this report. It's important to teach about what happened in those camps and to understand why they were wrong. Drawing inappropriate comparisons between those camps and the absolute atrocities in this report isn't helpful.

Someone1234 12y ago
> Drawing inappropriate comparisons between those camps and the absolute atrocities in this report isn't helpful. Nobody did. I said that Americans looked the other way. Nothing more, nothing less. You're clearly reading more into what I said than what I actually said verbatim.
rayiner 12y ago
The difference, of course, is that those in the internment camps were Americans, while most of these guys are terrorists captured on the battlefield. I do think the comparison is inappropriate, but internment was the atrocity, not this.
- DanBC 12y ago
  How do you know all these detainees were "captured on the battlefield"? Because we've been told that? By the same people who said we were not using extraordinary rendition and not using torture? I'm surprised that you think torture is not an atrocity. The US claims to be "giving the gift of democracy" and "spreading freedom". Ignoring international conventions on the rights of prisoners of war (and do not start the weaselly bullshit about whether these people are POWs or not) doesn't seem to be a good way of liberating a nation.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    > How do you know all these detainees were "captured on the battlefield"? By the same people who said we were not using extraordinary rendition and not using torture? Because if the CIA was just ignoring the rules, they wouldn't be trying to lawyer their way around what's "enhanced interrogation" versus "torture." They'd just be pulling out fingernails. > Ignoring international conventions on the rights of prisoners of war You fundamentally misunderstand the rationale behind these conventions. The reason we don't torture the soldiers of civilized nations is because we assume that they will reciprocate when it comes to our soldiers. Stateless militants can't be expected to do that, so the rationale for following those international conventions disappears.
    - lotharbot 12y ago
      We generally try to uphold high moral standards even if they won't be reciprocated. Many of those conventions provide additional incentive of reciprocation, but that's not the only relevant factor.
      - rayiner 12y ago
        So you're saying we shouldn't engage in torture because it's "bad"? It's okay to blow these same people up in the battlefield, but god forbid we throw water on them and put them in a slightly cold room?
        mikeash 12y ago
        I'm much more comfortable with blowing up bad guys than with capturing them and subjecting them to a combined anal rape/feeding procedure. Does this surprise you? It shouldn't.
        reitanqild 12y ago
        Oh come on, be serious: Most of us would much rather prefer to be shot dead or blown up in a split second than being even slightly tortured and locked up indefinitely. If not it must be because we don't know what we are talking about.
        waterlesscloud 12y ago
        I am extremely doubtful about your assertion that most people would rather be shot dead than locked up indefinitely. You're also making assumptions that people die instantly on the battlefield and in drone attacks. That's not the case. They can (and do) die in slow, lingering, painful ways in such cases.
        reitanqild 12y ago
        I see. And I admit writing the wrong thing. My point is being locked up indefinitely and tortured again and again. Waiting for pain is also painful unless you are very mentally strong.
- mikeash 12y ago
  In your view, it's OK to torture people as long as they're not American?
- bediger4000 12y ago
  More legal argument. Given that the current US legal system doesn't apparently protect me, a US citizen, from administrative assassination, I'm worried that I can be administratively shipped off for torture. That is: the actions outlined in this summary of a report, and in other tacit admissions by US elected leaders, go way beyond arguing that the actions are "legal" or "illegal". The actions outlined in the summary speak to a government that does not care about most human beings at all. All of morality is not contained within the law. Segregation was legal for a while. Apartheid was legal for a while.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    It's not a legal argument at all. Go up to a random person on the street (not in San Francisco), and tell them that the rights of people caught fighting against the U.S. in Afghanistan are just as important as those of law-abiding immigrants trying to build a life in the U.S. To the contrary. I think you have to have a very legalistic dedication to procedural due process to assert that people abroad advocating the violent overthrow of the United States should have the same rights as ordinary accused in the United States.
    - bediger4000 12y ago
      I have to disagree: the instant that something becomes a privilege, and not a right, is the instant that some administrator can decide that I personally don't deserve that privilege. There goes my personal protection against our police force, and my personal ability to speak my mind. Beyond that, if it's good policy for US citizens to have freedom of speech, or right to a fair trial, or to not be tortured, then it's good policy for all humans to have those rights. By asserting the "random person in the street" argument, you're asserting a tyranny of the majority. You should know better. Shame on you.
- lawnchair_larry 12y ago
  "but internment was the atrocity, not this." I never was fond of you, but this confirms that you're truly a vile human. I cannot believe that there is an actual torture apologist on HN. In your follow-up comment, you rationalize it by saying that they are not worthy of the same treatment as those from civilized nations. I don't know if you're a sociopath or you harbor a lot of hate and anger, but in either case, I hope you get the help you need before you hurt someone.

Someone1234 12y ago

> Drawing inappropriate comparisons between those camps and the absolute atrocities in this report isn't helpful. Nobody did. I said that Americans looked the other way. Nothing more, nothing less. You're clearly reading more into what I said than what I actually said verbatim.

rayiner 12y ago

The difference, of course, is that those in the internment camps were Americans, while most of these guys are terrorists captured on the battlefield. I do think the comparison is inappropriate, but internment was the atrocity, not this.

DanBC 12y ago
How do you know all these detainees were "captured on the battlefield"? Because we've been told that? By the same people who said we were not using extraordinary rendition and not using torture? I'm surprised that you think torture is not an atrocity. The US claims to be "giving the gift of democracy" and "spreading freedom". Ignoring international conventions on the rights of prisoners of war (and do not start the weaselly bullshit about whether these people are POWs or not) doesn't seem to be a good way of liberating a nation.
- rayiner 12y ago
  > How do you know all these detainees were "captured on the battlefield"? By the same people who said we were not using extraordinary rendition and not using torture? Because if the CIA was just ignoring the rules, they wouldn't be trying to lawyer their way around what's "enhanced interrogation" versus "torture." They'd just be pulling out fingernails. > Ignoring international conventions on the rights of prisoners of war You fundamentally misunderstand the rationale behind these conventions. The reason we don't torture the soldiers of civilized nations is because we assume that they will reciprocate when it comes to our soldiers. Stateless militants can't be expected to do that, so the rationale for following those international conventions disappears.
  - lotharbot 12y ago
    We generally try to uphold high moral standards even if they won't be reciprocated. Many of those conventions provide additional incentive of reciprocation, but that's not the only relevant factor.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      So you're saying we shouldn't engage in torture because it's "bad"? It's okay to blow these same people up in the battlefield, but god forbid we throw water on them and put them in a slightly cold room?
      - mikeash 12y ago
        I'm much more comfortable with blowing up bad guys than with capturing them and subjecting them to a combined anal rape/feeding procedure. Does this surprise you? It shouldn't.
      - reitanqild 12y ago
        Oh come on, be serious: Most of us would much rather prefer to be shot dead or blown up in a split second than being even slightly tortured and locked up indefinitely. If not it must be because we don't know what we are talking about.
        waterlesscloud 12y ago
        I am extremely doubtful about your assertion that most people would rather be shot dead than locked up indefinitely. You're also making assumptions that people die instantly on the battlefield and in drone attacks. That's not the case. They can (and do) die in slow, lingering, painful ways in such cases.
        reitanqild 12y ago
        I see. And I admit writing the wrong thing. My point is being locked up indefinitely and tortured again and again. Waiting for pain is also painful unless you are very mentally strong.
mikeash 12y ago
In your view, it's OK to torture people as long as they're not American?
bediger4000 12y ago
More legal argument. Given that the current US legal system doesn't apparently protect me, a US citizen, from administrative assassination, I'm worried that I can be administratively shipped off for torture. That is: the actions outlined in this summary of a report, and in other tacit admissions by US elected leaders, go way beyond arguing that the actions are "legal" or "illegal". The actions outlined in the summary speak to a government that does not care about most human beings at all. All of morality is not contained within the law. Segregation was legal for a while. Apartheid was legal for a while.
- rayiner 12y ago
  It's not a legal argument at all. Go up to a random person on the street (not in San Francisco), and tell them that the rights of people caught fighting against the U.S. in Afghanistan are just as important as those of law-abiding immigrants trying to build a life in the U.S. To the contrary. I think you have to have a very legalistic dedication to procedural due process to assert that people abroad advocating the violent overthrow of the United States should have the same rights as ordinary accused in the United States.
  - bediger4000 12y ago
    I have to disagree: the instant that something becomes a privilege, and not a right, is the instant that some administrator can decide that I personally don't deserve that privilege. There goes my personal protection against our police force, and my personal ability to speak my mind. Beyond that, if it's good policy for US citizens to have freedom of speech, or right to a fair trial, or to not be tortured, then it's good policy for all humans to have those rights. By asserting the "random person in the street" argument, you're asserting a tyranny of the majority. You should know better. Shame on you.
lawnchair_larry 12y ago
"but internment was the atrocity, not this." I never was fond of you, but this confirms that you're truly a vile human. I cannot believe that there is an actual torture apologist on HN. In your follow-up comment, you rationalize it by saying that they are not worthy of the same treatment as those from civilized nations. I don't know if you're a sociopath or you harbor a lot of hate and anger, but in either case, I hope you get the help you need before you hurt someone.