Should POW's be Tortured

[Skeptic Ginger]

So you're saying that it's impossible for a terrorist to get ahold of a nuclear weapon? Please provide some evidence to prove that it's impossible. And even if that were actually true, it still does not change a thing and does not change the fact that you are simply trying to avoid the question and missing the point of it.

Do you ever address anything other than straw men?

 

[Piggy]

Actually, as Piggy says, the answer is rather obvious but has nothing to do with the torture question in the real world.

No offense, but please don't alter my post when you quote.

I would prefer if you would say something like "I wouldn't call it dumb, but I would call it irrelevant".

I think the forum rules also require this.

Thanks.

 

[SezMe]

For one thing, the president wouldn't have the authority to break the law.

*snort* Now I know why you have posed a fantasy scenario; because you live in a fantasy world.

Let's see. Hmmmm. George W. Bush. Richard M. Nixon. Franklin Roosevelt. Need I go on?

C'mon, the title of this thread contains an important question. Can you please engage it in our real world and not some fun place you dreamed up.

 

[Wildy]

Of course they will. But ambushes aren't prohibited tactics, so there's no problem if they do.

The problem is if they "perfidiously" wear civilian clothing instead of simply hiding behind walls and trees or something --- not wearing uniforms is a prohibited tactic.

Pray tell me, in a time of war who ensures that people wear their uniforms? Who are these referees who seem to be able to command any army at will?

Well, one BIG way in which it differs is that the French resistance was active from about 1941-5, while the Iraqi insurgency is active from about 2002-8.

Your point?

... which is acceptable. The legally relevant difference is one of targeting, not of accidental casualties.

And you still missed my point.

Wow. Three objections, none of them relevant or even well-thought out. Let's see how you do with the fourth.

You miss my points and you say that I am not thinking?

No, but the Lt. Calley trial was not imposed upon the US. It did that voluntarily.

So, zero for four. Good going.

And do you think that had there not been a public outcry Lt. Calley would have been charged?

You mean, the charges for which Admiral Donitz was acquitted because they were not contrary to the laws and customs of war? No need to charge someone with something that isn't a crime....

Zero for five.

Wrong my friend. Read the charges again. Why not look here?

He was found not guilty on count one, which was:

Conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

Count three relates to the submarine warfare. What they did however was basically give him 0 years in prison for it because of the evidence that showed that the Allies did it as well. He was still found guilty.

Oh and on the score thing, how can you say that I am 0/5 when in one of my points you played a semantic argument? And another where you are clearly wrong? And one where you clearly agree with what I say?

I'll bet you vote Libertarian, too.

Poor deluded fool. I'll tell you how I voted:

1. Democrats
2. Greens
3. Family First
4. Independent
5. Liberal
6. Liberty and Democracy
7. One Nation
8. Labor

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No offense, but please don't alter my post when you quote.

I would prefer if you would say something like "I wouldn't call it dumb, but I would call it irrelevant".

I think the forum rules also require this.

Thanks.

I don't know how to react to your complaint. Surely Piggy, you of all people recognize [] indicates a divergence from the original quote? I believe I used proper identification that the bracketed wording was mine and not yours. It was simply a way of indicating where my view differed from yours. That is pretty standard nomenclature. I'm sorry you didn't understand it. But it is proper to add bracketed changes to quotes as a way of indicating one's changes. Are you suggesting I apologize when it was done properly? I'm at a loss here.

From the Guide to Grammar and Style by Jack Lynch.

When you quote others, you're expected to quote them exactly, right down to the spelling, capitalization, and italicization. If you change anything, you have to signal it to your readers. The most common ways to do this are with [brackets] for additions and ellipses (. . .) for omissions

 

[torporchair]

Torture is not what America is trying to be all about. America is a long, long way from perfect, but torture has no place in our treatment of POWs. What kind of a country do we want to be? Who are we, what are our values, do we have principles or do we have pseudo-principles?

If we torture a POW, our own troops will be far more likely to be tortured.

Also, the veracity of information gained from torture, as has been pointed out time and again, is very questionable.

 

[gumboot]

No. It's certainly very rare that the winners of a war will convene multinational war crimes tribunals, but violations of the rules of war is something that, historically, the US has acted on its own to punish. One of the most famous examples is the My Lai massacre, for which Lt. William Calley was court-martialed and sentenced to life in prison. (The sentence was later commuted by President Nixon, but the conviction still stands as an example.)

I think something important needs to be pointed out here.

Under the LOAC breaches by military personnel are to be persecuted using the military justice system of the holding nation. This is called a Courts Martial. Soldiers of your own armed forces suspected of war crimes are tried in this way (and there were trials for allied soldiers who committed warcrimes during WW2) and holding powrs also trial enemy POWs under their own system (and German soldiers suspected of warcrimes were tried by allied Courts Martials).

Enemy POWs may also be tried by their own military justice system once repatriated at the end of hostilities, as also happens to enemy soldiers who were not POWs (and this also happened with many soldiers in WW2).

The question is what happens to suspected war criminals who are not POWs at the time of surrender. Normally surrender is conditional, and one of those conditions is the fate of suspected war criminals. Typically they are tried by the civilian judiciary of their own country (and again, many German war criminals were subsequently tried in German courts).

But WW2 ended with something very, very unusual, which was the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers which essentially dissolved the Axis states. This left the question of what do to with suspected enemy war criminals that were not POWs. Hence why the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal was created. And it was perfectly in keeping with international law. It was illogical for suspected allied war criminals to be tried by a tribunal as both the military justice system and the civilian judiciary of the allied nations was still intact.

 

[JoeEllison]

How do you know it is this person that has planted the bomb, how do you know it is set to go off in 24 hours, how do you know what information you need to make it safe and of course how do you know you can torture the person into giving you the information you need to make it safe?

Because you're Jack Bauer, and in order to catch an international terrorist, Jack Bauer must become...


... a rapist!

 

[Cylinder]

Pray tell me, in a time of war who ensures that people wear their uniforms? Who are these referees who seem to be able to command any army at will?

You answered your first question with your second. Other than in the case of spontaneous uprising, legal combatants are required to be subject to a command structure - one responsibility of which is LOAC compliance.

 

[Piggy]

I don't know how to react to your complaint. Surely Piggy, you of all people recognize [] indicates a divergence from the original quote? I believe I used proper identification that the bracketed wording was mine and not yours. It was simply a way of indicating where my view differed from yours. That is pretty standard nomenclature. I'm sorry you didn't understand it. But it is proper to add bracketed changes to quotes as a way of indicating one's changes. Are you suggesting I apologize when it was done properly? I'm at a loss here.

I don't think Lynch applies to message board etiquette.

I'm not all hot under the collar or anything, but I do think it's unkosher to make edits inside the cite other than <snip>.

Many people on this board use the strikethru in their posts. If you add them to quoted material, it's not clear that it does not belong to the original.

So I'm just asking, please, if you don't mind, don't alter quoted material beyond the <snip>.

Do any mods here have a word on this issue?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Do you ever address anything other than straw men?

Go learn what a strawman is. And kinda funny coming from someone who can't even answer the question. Oh the irony in your post.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

*snort* Now I know why you have posed a fantasy scenario; because you live in a fantasy world.

Let's see. Hmmmm. George W. Bush. Richard M. Nixon. Franklin Roosevelt. Need I go on?

C'mon, the title of this thread contains an important question. Can you please engage it in our real world and not some fun place you dreamed up.

That's funny, because you are the one trying to imply the fantasy world where there is only right and wrong. Good guys and bad guys. Yet at the same time saying that a terrorist getting ahold of a nuclear weapon is impossible. Who's the one living in a fantasy here?

but let's be honest. All this is is you trying to push your political views and using torture as a means to try and guilt your opinion on others. Hence the need to bring up presidents when this issue has little to do with them. You don't like the current administration and have to try and use issues such as this to mislead people. yeah let's bring up torture something that is not very common and pretend it is while we ignore really serious issues.

Don't go pretending that I am not addressing the issue when you are the one using it for your personal rhetoric.

 

[Piggy]

Yet at the same time saying that a terrorist getting ahold of a nuclear weapon is impossible.

No one has said that.

What we have said is that the comic-book scenario being spun around that possibility -- i.e., somehow we're holding the master-mind of the plot, somehow we know that this plot exists, somehow we know he knows all about it, and somehow we know what the timing is -- is straight out of Hollywood and is not really helpful in deciding what our policy should be in the real world.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Torture is not what America is trying to be all about. America is a long, long way from perfect, but torture has no place in our treatment of POWs. What kind of a country do we want to be? Who are we, what are our values, do we have principles or do we have pseudo-principles?

If we torture a POW, our own troops will be far more likely to be tortured.

Also, the veracity of information gained from torture, as has been pointed out time and again, is very questionable.

No, torture is not what America is about. It's what people here want to make it about so they can pretend that the people they don't like are evil war mongers and stereo-typical bad guys out of a comic book. That's why they want to mislead people into thinking this is a policy. They will use rogue incidents such as Abu Grabass to imply that it's some kind of policy, or the waterboarding of 4 people 5 years ago and mislead people into thinking its some common policy.

And torturing POWs will not make our own troops far more likely to be tortured. They are already guaranteed to be tortured no matter what. This is a case that is being blown out of proportion to serve as propaganda. These same people when proposed situations that question whether they are for the better good of the people or their moral principle cower and then pretend any situation where a terrorist could have information that could save people is impossible. This is a fantasy they live in.

No one is saying torture should be policy or any kind of regular event. These dishonest people simply want you to think that so they can make people feel guilty. Preying on the concept that anyone that isn't against any possible situational use is bad. These people don't give a damn about anyone but themselves and pretend to be moral when they are anything BUT that. They just want to put on a show to impose their political beliefs and don't truley understand reality.

Luckily our lawmakers are a little more honest (if you can believe that). They understand that there are certain circumstances where it could be for the better good. And hence the whole issue being up for debate. Most of them want torture to be illegal, but with a few exceptions for extreme cases. This issue is not about making torture some standard policy as these people here would like to make you believe.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

No one has said that.

What we have said is that the comic-book scenario being spun around that possibility -- i.e., somehow we're holding the master-mind of the plot, somehow we know that this plot exists, somehow we know he knows all about it, and somehow we know what the timing is -- is straight out of Hollywood and is not really helpful in deciding what our policy should be in the real world.

No you said just that. i propose the far extreme example. YOU imply that it's the only possible scenario and that it's out of a comic book. Completely missing the point (as expected) that there are a billion circumstances inbetween torturing someone who is known to be innocent but doing it for pleasure, and a situation where millions of lives are at stake.

The fact that you DONT get that speaks miles. It just shows that you are thinking in black and white. There's only good or bad. Only innocent people being tortured, or some hollywood scenario. Nothing in between.

And again, to say that a terrorist getting ahold of a nuclear weapon to use against people is not a hollywood scenario. It's been used in hollywood because it is such a plausible one. But that doesn't go along with your rhetoric campaign so you just brush it off so you don't have to answer the question.

 

[Piggy]

And torturing POWs will not make our own troops far more likely to be tortured. They are already guaranteed to be tortured no matter what.

This is where you're wrong.

You seem to imagine that extremist terrorists are the whole ball of wax.

They're not.

Yeah, the kind of people who decapitate journalists on TV are beyond reach. They need to be killed or locked up, period, and nothing we do is going to impact them.

But what about the little brother of an innocent young Muslim man who gets caught in a round-up of a city block, taken to a holding facility, held incommunicado, subjected to extreme interrogation methods, determined to have no information, and released?

What about that little boy?

He could have been our ally. Now he's our enemy.

What about the fence-sitters who hear the rhetoric about America being the Great Satan and are not sure whether to believe it. Then this young man comes home and tells his story. Will our actions make up their minds in ways we would rather they not be made up?

What about our allies who have to ask themselves whether they can afford to support us militarily, and whose populations are repulsed by the practice of torture? What about moderate Islamic governments who are having difficulty controlling the "street"?

Yes, there are those who would torture our troops no matter what. But there are others who would not -- unless, of course, they believed that it was the policy of the US to torture those whom we capture. Then it's just tip for tap.

If you won't listen to me, maybe you'll listen to a soldier who was there:

I remember a seasoned senior officer explaining the importance of the Geneva Conventions. He said, “When an enemy fighter knows he’ll be treated well by United States forces if he is captured, he is more likely to give up.”

A year later on the streets of Baghdad, I saw countless insurgents surrender when faced with the prospect of a hot meal, a pack of cigarettes and air-conditioning. America’s moral integrity was the single most important weapon my platoon had on the streets of Iraq. It saved innumerable lives, encouraged cooperation with our allies and deterred Iraqis from joining the growing insurgency.

 

[Piggy]

No you said just that. i propose the far extreme example. YOU imply that it's the only possible scenario and that it's out of a comic book. Completely missing the point (as expected) that there are a billion circumstances inbetween torturing someone who is known to be innocent but doing it for pleasure, and a situation where millions of lives are at stake.

The fact that you DONT get that speaks miles. It just shows that you are thinking in black and white. There's only good or bad. Only innocent people being tortured, or some hollywood scenario. Nothing in between.

And again, to say that a terrorist getting ahold of a nuclear weapon to use against people is not a hollywood scenario. It's been used in hollywood because it is such a plausible one. But that doesn't go along with your rhetoric campaign so you just brush it off so you don't have to answer the question.

No, my friend, I'm not missing the point.

No one here was proposing the need for some "moral line". You invented that notion, then you proposed a game wherein you outlined extreme cases and invited us to propose where this line of yours (not ours) was to be drawn.

And it's a fool's game, like trying to determine where the atmosphere ends exactly.

What we're saying is that there's no need to play such a game.

I never mentioned good and bad. In fact, I've said explicitly on this thread that it's not even a moral issue, but a practical one. If we consider morality at all, it only needs to be in the context of factoring in the reaction of the American people, our allies, and those who are faced with the choice of believing in what we stand for or what the terrorists stand for.

You choose to ignore this and continue projecting your myth of who we -- those who disagree with you -- are onto us, rather than actually listening to what we have to say.

Rather childish, actually.

And here again, you come back to the claim that someone here is saying that it's impossible for terrorists to get a hold of nuclear weapons, which in fact no one is saying.

As I explicitly pointed out in plain language that everyone can see, it's not this point to which we object. Rather, it's the implausible drama you spin around it which is so absurd.

Bottom line: There is no need to play your "draw the line" game b/c it is wholly your invention and is irrelevant to the real arguments against torture, which are much more complex and are concerned with much thornier real-world questions such as whether it works, what the negative impacts are on our allies, to what degree it actually emboldens the enemy and supports their recruiting campaigns, etc.

It's fine if you disagree, but this business of trying to claim that people are saying what no one has said, and of ignoring what people clearly have said... well, you can't expect to pull those kinds of tricks and get any respect.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

No one is saying that the average joe prisoner should be tortured. And when such things do happen, it's illegal. Hence people being involved in Abu Grabass going to jail. And yes that indeed makes things worse for us. But this whole issue has come up over the waterboarding issue. And this is something done in the extreme cases. This is what congress is arguing about. Not the rogue interrogators who break the law. But whether the act of waterboarding, or at least the loop hole on it should be made illegal.

But this is the problem with this being turned into a political issue. The implication is being made that torture should be used on every and anyone. And what gives the bad guys (for lack of a better term) this impression of us being this society of torturers are those that use this stuff as a political tool.

To simply make a hard set rule is going to mean putting lives in jeopardy when (not if) the extreme scenario comes around. This is why there need to be conditions for these extreme cases.

The issue at hand is how to handle the loop hole of enemy combatants. The best solution is to make it illegal with provisions for extreme cases. Otherwise the rules of the Army handbook are to be followed. And for every story you provide, there is a counter one. It's all about a balancing act and that is why absolute rules are dangerous.

 

[Cylinder]

No one has said that.

What we have said is that the comic-book scenario being spun around that possibility -- i.e., somehow we're holding the master-mind of the plot, somehow we know that this plot exists, somehow we know he knows all about it, and somehow we know what the timing is -- is straight out of Hollywood and is not really helpful in deciding what our policy should be in the real world.

There's a bit of misunderstanding of how good intelligence works. I suggest the A&E program The First 48 if you're interested in seeing a decent-enough civilian analogue. There are moments of immediate understanding but more often than not it's a very painstaking - and frankly boring - assembly of a broader mosaic from seemingly trivial details. Who drives the truck? How is the cell financed? How does the operational commander receive orders? Those are the stuff of Eureka! moments - not some Hollywood plot that fits nicely between commercial breaks.

 

[SezMe]

That's why they want to mislead people into thinking this is a policy.

Jonny, go here to read various articles about the Bush Administration's policy discussions regarding torture. Now I know where you got part of your handle.